On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Paul Brannan <pbrannan / atdesk.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 09:04:28PM +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:
>  > The single benchmark I pointed out was symptomatic, but the problem
>  > was ALWAYS that the shootout took itself too seriously, which
>  > encouraged idiots to take it too seriously. And yes, *that* message
>  > has been constant in my criticisms of your pet project, Isaac.
>  Sounds like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Whatever. If people are willing to treat this thing with any
seriousness, far be it from me to stop them from being stupid.

>  > I didn't actually badmouth the shootout this time, Isaac. I said that
>  > the authors of the posts were idiots for using the shootout in a
>  > serious comparison.
>  I think you called the shootout "worthless."

That's because it *is*. Its latest name change makes that clear: it's
a game. It doesn't actually provide comparative value. It's not
badmouthing to say something that the thing says about itself. My
biggest beef with it (aside from people who take it seriously) is that
it took itself too seriously for far too long. Yeah, there was a page
buried four links deep that said "this shouldn't be taken seriously",
but that's not what the majority of the pages said. For a LONG time.

If, in fact, it doesn't take itself seriously anymore, I have no
problem with the shootout (or "benchmark game") as such anymore. I
instead have a problem with the fools who take it seriously.

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