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 concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16A28BB81 for ; Sun, 9 Oct 2005 19:38:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.enyo.de (mail.enyo.de [212.9.189.167]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j99HcU9e026259 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 9 Oct 2005 19:38:30 +0200 Received: from deneb.vpn.enyo.de ([212.9.189.177] helo=deneb.enyo.de) by albireo.enyo.de with esmtp id 1EOf80-00055z-VD; Sun, 09 Oct 2005 19:38:29 +0200 Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EOf7B-0001DQ-Dv; Sun, 09 Oct 2005 19:37:37 +0200 From: Florian Weimer To: Thomas Fischbacher Cc: Yaron Minsky , caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Ray tracer language comparison References: <200510040018.24932.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <891bd3390510090424g4a88053eg5a890e83ed701d4b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 19:37:37 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Thomas Fischbacher's message of "Sun, 9 Oct 2005 15:59:27 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: <877jcmbnha.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 43495596.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 ocaml:01 hoax:98 lisp:01 lisp:01 caml:02 florian:02 objective:02 comparison:03 bank:93 bank:93 elaborate:06 steel:92 steel:92 strange:07 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 * Thomas Fischbacher: > I just extended my analysis by another implementation in yet another > language. This time, it's "Steel Bank Common Lisp". Is this some kind of elaborate hoax? If it is, I don't get it? "OCaml" vs. "Objective Caml", "SBCL" vs. "Steel Bank Common Lisp", "1/8" vs. "1/10" -- all these comparisons are a bit strange.