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 mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1398BBAF for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 07:22:23 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArUBAE4+7ExKfVK2kGdsb2JhbACiaggWAQIJCRMRAx+icYlkghiFCi6IWQEBAwWFRwSOVA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,246,1288566000"; d="scan'208";a="80825345" Received: from mail-wy0-f182.google.com ([74.125.82.182]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 24 Nov 2010 07:22:12 +0100 Received: by wyf19 with SMTP id 19so2677165wyf.27 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 22:22:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:cc:references :in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:thread-index:content-language; bh=EMJ1enDPXnjlIDRi9A+/ITlH9yue7hIt5xYVaHj2RcQ=; b=AXqfsybVd8cY0+ciNq9l4aZ9dZzoAIuo3Uid7WZwIeIuDoO0AJ7Ly8zY6vq/+scDwA 0/crCE1ReGlhibGAfEbOgC8uaBV3/RS9teniHi2Lz7bf4XrvBCrmbS/ch1oDS0+4Qb9r e2hy6BvR30Na52Mc+k42maECXTbs6/ob8Nlko= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer :thread-index:content-language; b=lOUALZm75Ig4wPHLdmIrapR8o5vjafqnOWh6NSGiNBszeIP9kLMzWQVwiAIBxXayp/ CwFsE/PlNp+jo4obVSJWsxkRMx1cRcxyZ3FoSYnAIN/r3Gb/XXPyW8umuIL8GQ4DuiC6 pnOKFDPHIzORFPvT91OSuDB+EtYKQh+FK02Xk= Received: by 10.227.142.85 with SMTP id p21mr8868653wbu.150.1290579731682; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 22:22:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from clemlaptop (ip-43.net-81-220-116.brest.rev.numericable.fr [81.220.116.43]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i19sm4679526wbe.17.2010.11.23.22.22.10 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 23 Nov 2010 22:22:11 -0800 (PST) From: Andrew To: "'Jeff Meister'" , "'Isaac Gouy'" Cc: References: <1290434674.16005.354.camel@thinkpad> <20101122180203.2126497sau3zukgb@webmail.in-berlin.de> <20101123232742.GC28768@siouxsie> In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast? Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 07:22:10 +0100 Message-ID: <4cecaf13.1328e30a.6035.53e7@mx.google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcuLkal5YdnY+kRWTgC6N3jrnyqJxgADajiQ Content-Language: fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 ocaml:01 garbage:01 caml-list:01 shootout:02 misleading:03 constructive:03 languages:03 languages:03 programming:03 benchmark:04 meaningful:04 processors:04 consequence:04 thread:06 > ::Jeff Meister >Everyone in this thread is capable of reading your site and has >probably already done so. We know what your rules are for >binary-trees; repeating them does not help. Richard's objection, which >you dismissed out of hand, was that your no-GC-tuning rule is silly in >the light of actual uses of garbage collected programming languages on >modern processors. It makes your results unrealistic, and an >unrealistic benchmark is misleading, or at best merely useless. You >are free to tersely reject our constructive criticism, but the only >meaningful consequence will be that OCaml users consider the shootout >untrustworthy and completely ignore its results... what good are the >"language comparisons" your project makes if the communities behind >those languages don't support your benchmarking methods? +1. Seriously, Isaac, try to calm down, everything is fine. You might want to read what others write, I have the feeling that many people were making valid points, whereas you have mostly been turning down any objection by pointing people to the same webpage and again. Andrew.