I've changed the subject line - my apologies for not having done so
sooner.

Austin Ziegler wrote:
> On 9/15/06, Isaac Gouy <igouy / yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/old/benchmark.php?test=ackermann&lang=perl&id=3
> > So you couldn't find that Perl program in the current benchmarks.
>
> > We do still show "the obsolete 2001 Doug Bagley Benchmarks", and we
> > *do* prominently label them "the obsolete 2001 Doug Bagley Benchmarks",
> > and of course they were not referred to by Kevin Tew.
>
> This is not the 2001 benchmark that we're talking about, Mr. Gouy.
> This is the one that you had that replaced the 2001 benchmark.

I don't know what you mean.
Those "obsolete 2001 Doug Bagley Benchmarks" /are/ the same tasks that
appeared on Doug Bagley's old Great Computer Language Shootout. That's
simple enough to confirm, just check with the Wayback Machine archive
http://web.archive.org/web/20010124090400/http://www.bagley.org/~doug/shootout/


>
> > > You may have changed the set of benchmarks.
> > There's no /may/ - the benchmarks were changed a year ago.
>
> You snipped the context in your split of the paragraph. The
> implication here is that I don't think you've changed your
> methodology, which is what the problem was. Not the benchmarks
> themselves.

No Austin, none of your posting was snipped, the whole posting was
shown.


>
> > > I'll do some research now
> > > and see if you've actually cleaned up your methodology. I doubt it,
> > > but if you have, I'll publicly post an apology. If you haven't, you'll
> > > clean up your methodology. Otherwise, I'll update my criticisms, but
> > > you won't get anything positive from me about the shootout.
> > >
> > > It will be about two weeks before I can look at this, but I will do so.
> > >
> > > Do we have an agreement there?
> >
> > Of course not.
>
> Then I see no reason to research the issue aside from my own sense of
> honour. I'll do it, but you have confirmed for me that I'll find
> exactly what I'm expecting to find and that you haven't done anything
> to improve your methodology, so you'll be getting no apology unless I
> find that -- as unlikely as it appears to be -- you have actually
> changed the methodology you use.
>
> Cluebat: your methodology is and always has been the problem. Until
> that improves, the shootout remains completely useless.

Are you usually given a blank check? :-)

Anyway, I look forward to a diatribe against /the current/ Computer
Language Shootout.

As a practical matter
- it's obvious that this topic has long been tedious to some folk on
this list, so let's be considerate and give them a subject line they
can filter out

- better yet, post the diatribe in The Computer Language Shootout
Benchmarks discussion forum
http://alioth.debian.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=999

- better yet, post the diatribe somewhere else and link to it everytime
you feel the need to make the same points
http://wiki.rubygarden.org/Ruby/page/show/BenchMarks


>
> -austin
> --
> Austin Ziegler * halostatue / gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/
>                * austin / halostatue.ca * http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/
>                * austin / zieglers.ca