On 8/16/05, Austin Ziegler <halostatue / gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/16/05, Isaac Gouy <igouy / yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Daniel Amelang wrote:
> > -snip-
> > > I highly recommend reading through the arguments and counter arguments
> > > before we do a complete reproduction here.
> > Thank you Daniel, you might notice my name in those discussions.
> 
> Only as an uncritical booster who doesn't actually listen. Just like now, no?
> 
> > As you've mentioned, other folk on ruby-talk presented
> > counter-arguments to Austin's claims - afaict those counter-arguments
> > were never rebutted.
> 
> Then you simply can't tell. They were. Basically, the shootout you run
> is -- always has been -- and always will be -- crap. You can take
> steps to make it honest crap, instead of what it is, though.
> 
> > -snip-
> > > I'm just trying to save us (and
> > > you) from more of the same-old-same-old discussions.
> > If there's any substance behind the name-calling we should be able to
> > point-out specific errors on the shootout.
> 
> When the problem with the shootout is the methodology and the
> presentation -- without getting into more substantial errors
> (statistical problems) -- and the general unwillingness of the people
> who run it to do anything to improve the methodology and presentation,
> then there's not a specific error. The whole thing is wrong. Until you
> understand that there's problems with your whole damned methodology
> and even worse problems with your presentation, you're never going to
> get it.
> 
> Even if Ruby were to become the best performing language tomorrow, I
> wouldn't recommend that anyone pay attention to the pile of garbage
> known as the "Great Computer Language Shootout." The only thing
> "great" about it is the amount of sheer ignorance that it and its
> maintainers willingly perpetuate.

Please, tell us how you *really* feel.  I feel like there's some
bottled up emotions in there somewhere that you aren't telling us.