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 mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 221FEBBAF for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 22:52:34 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjwBAAsY7UxRZ90wkWdsb2JhbACUUY44FQEBAQEJCwoHEQMfvjiFRwSKYA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,249,1288566000"; d="scan'208";a="68004958" Received: from mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.48]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 24 Nov 2010 22:52:33 +0100 Received: from aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.35]) by mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vM.7.08.04.00 201-2186-134-20080326) with ESMTP id <20101124215232.MUBH19887.mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com>; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:52:32 +0000 Received: from romulus.metastack.com ([81.102.132.77]) by aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vG.3.00.04.00 201-2196-133-20080908) with ESMTP id <20101124215232.LRQM25656.aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@romulus.metastack.com>; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:52:32 +0000 Received: from remus.metastack.local ([172.16.0.1]) by romulus.metastack.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id oAOLqTKT021216 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:52:29 GMT Received: from Remus.metastack.local ([fe80::547c:3c42:e1da:eda2]) by Remus.metastack.local ([fe80::547c:3c42:e1da:eda2%11]) with mapi; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:49:52 +0000 From: David Allsopp To: Isaac Gouy , "caml-list@inria.fr" Subject: RE: [Caml-list] [Was: Is OCaml fast?] Not really sure... Thread-Topic: [Caml-list] [Was: Is OCaml fast?] Not really sure... Thread-Index: AcuMHwL5Y4KRLMW2SFaQaECw03nz1g== Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:49:50 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.65 on 81.102.132.77 X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=X0sWjjQ37bMP4yB/pNNinY3VxVB2n/hmdAjhihaCFGs= c=1 sm=0 a=4j24h8N4N10A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=CjxXgO3LAAAA:8 a=GjP1GBKXb2VHx0ZfBXgA:9 a=joy0_2IaH4Bub03q7D-pKWpzvDAA:4 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=W3IaIUEmhbwA:10 a=HpAAvcLHHh0Zw7uRqdWCyQ==:117 X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 suspense:98 dancing:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 writes:01 arbitrary:02 purely:02 argument:02 snip:02 represented:02 shootout:02 authors:03 strong:96 seems:03 Isaac Gouy wrote: > Ed Keith yahoo.com> writes: >=20 > > > > I am not asking WHAT the rules are but a JUSTIFICATION > > > for them (which you > > > > have been incapable of providing so far). > > > > > > I feel no need to provide a JUSTIFICATION to you for anything. > > > > > > > Am I to interpret this to mean that the rules are purely arbitrary and > capricious with no though behind them? >=20 > Tendentious. >=20 > A great deal of thought has been given to all aspects of the benchmarks > game. Aw, come on - the suspense is worse than the crime thriller I'm reading at = the moment! Here, given the UK's austerity measures as applied to my imagination, is a = logical rather than imaginative argument. If a great deal of thought has been given to the benchmarks game (and I can= well believe that it has) then it stands to reason that someone, hopefully= you, knows the reasoning (justification is perhaps too strong or personal = a word) behind the various rules and so could write it down. So please shar= e it - not just with us but with the authors in all the languages represent= ed by the shootout by updating the relevant page on its website. It seems s= afe to assume from the level of questioning (and lack of answering from any= one else) that the reasoning is not obvious so a point or two would help to= clarify it and if not close the discussion, at least fairly and squarely m= ove it to the shootout's forums... Alternatively, if that's not the case, stop dancing around the point and ju= st state that the rules are that way because you say that they are. Full st= op. End discussion. On all lists. David