From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFB6DBBAF for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 00:27:44 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuECAFbc60zAbSoIYGdsb2JhbACDTpEYjgQLHyUEHq1NkGYNgRWDNnME X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,244,1288566000"; d="scan'208";a="89213784" Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 24 Nov 2010 00:27:43 +0100 X-Envelope-From: oliver@first.in-berlin.de X-Envelope-To: Received: from first (e178040185.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.178.40.185]) (authenticated bits=0) by einhorn.in-berlin.de (8.13.6/8.13.6/Debian-1) with ESMTP id oANNRgiW017458 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 00:27:42 +0100 Received: by first (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 695DB4403B7; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 00:27:42 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 00:27:42 +0100 From: oliver@first.in-berlin.de To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast? Message-ID: <20101123232742.GC28768@siouxsie> References: <1290434674.16005.354.camel@thinkpad> <20101122180203.2126497sau3zukgb@webmail.in-berlin.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang_at_IN-Berlin_e.V. on 192.109.42.8 X-Spam: no; 0.00; in-berlin:01 ocaml:01 univ-orleans:01 23,:98 brent:98 wrote:01 oliver:01 oliver:01 caml-list:01 writes:01 bagley:02 bagley:02 shootout:02 doug:03 doug:03 On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 02:01:33AM +0000, Isaac Gouy wrote: > David Rajchenbach-Teller univ-orleans.fr> writes: > > > > I can confirm that old code-snippets were removed (and that both faster > solutions and environment > > variable tweaks were rejected). > > > Even back in 2001, Doug Bagley had noted all the things that were > wrong with the tasks on his "The Great Computer Language Shootout". And what was wrong in his eyes? > > During autumn 2004, on Brent Fulgham's website, new tasks were added > and old Doug Bagley tasks removed. > > By 2005 only 2 tasks remained from that old Doug Bagley website. > > By August 2008 none of those old Doug Bagley tasks were measured for > the current benchmarks game. So, now the comparisions are perfect? What problems were removed? Ciao, Oliver