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 0A8E1BBAF for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 05:39:23 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArYBALMl7ExKfVI0kGdsb2JhbACUPY4tCBYBAgkJExEDH4grmnSJZIIYhQYuiFkBAQMFhUcEhFqGBYV+ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,246,1288566000"; d="scan'208";a="80822778" Received: from mail-ww0-f52.google.com ([74.125.82.52]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 24 Nov 2010 05:39:22 +0100 Received: by wwb17 with SMTP id 17so5559030wwb.9 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:39:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=NbiKE/eDKJTX7cqc1FF2qKxgqe3YzPjC2I1lnvFfhnc=; b=Y+XRY1o4qSju3ngd+6Tn94K5l+gWjiYZoio2ZnI9jQcDBR9V3EnzhH8i1rfWWlP1BR x2WqShqkHQu2/yPntaAf66nd9/6mf9WkHof6ZLOj4MRk5F9tvk19/ipvgdpI7OQygv7e kuTxPdsh+sqGiquzredwvYF3UWUkasq6Ri4is= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=OxTRl2rYB21oHFOUejlmWzUUDWIMMf2SDAmQbR+D9seAVu5NJAiFF1zLwjGSx55IvK WhYxQHzfC6vSICmM3bwfU4IENgrl/4reWYrLFgvWfiVdtPqrAm5CGttOYnf2wTEqlpDl w8H+TySn0RrS5XI70WqJetr9HAZcfXzCalfuQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.8.199 with SMTP id 49mr7663128wer.1.1290573561640; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:39:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.23.80 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:39:21 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <1290434674.16005.354.camel@thinkpad> <20101122180203.2126497sau3zukgb@webmail.in-berlin.de> <20101123232742.GC28768@siouxsie> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:39:21 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast? From: Jeff Meister To: Isaac Gouy Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 ocaml:01 eray:01 ozkural:01 beginner's:01 bug:01 23,:98 garbage:01 beginners:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 caml-list:01 writes:01 bin:01 caml:02 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? On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Isaac Gouy wrote: > Eray Ozkural gmail.com> writes: > > >> Hello, I think that this benchmark is lacking ... > > http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/help.php#why > > > Please make the kind of comparison you think should be done and publish it. > > _______________________________________________ > Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: > http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list > Archives: http://caml.inria.fr > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs >