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 nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A813DBB81 for ; Sun, 9 Oct 2005 20:07:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.physik.uni-muenchen.de (mail.physik.uni-muenchen.de [192.54.42.129]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j99I7VTQ013268 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Sun, 9 Oct 2005 20:07:31 +0200 Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mail.physik.uni-muenchen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE40120005; Sun, 9 Oct 2005 20:07:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.physik.uni-muenchen.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.physik.uni-muenchen.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 22521-01-7; Sun, 9 Oct 2005 20:07:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mailhost.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de (kaiser.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de [141.84.136.1]) by mail.physik.uni-muenchen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B330920004; Sun, 9 Oct 2005 20:07:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eiger.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de (eiger.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de [141.84.136.54]) by mailhost.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 344C526F4D; Sun, 9 Oct 2005 20:07:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: by eiger.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de (Postfix, from userid 3092) id 4EB5A12F75; Sun, 9 Oct 2005 20:07:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eiger.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 490F812F17; Sun, 9 Oct 2005 20:07:30 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 20:07:30 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Fischbacher To: Florian Weimer Cc: Yaron Minsky , caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Ray tracer language comparison In-Reply-To: <877jcmbnha.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> Message-ID: References: <200510040018.24932.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <891bd3390510090424g4a88053eg5a890e83ed701d4b@mail.gmail.com> <877jcmbnha.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> X-BOFH: Daemons did it MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at physik.uni-muenchen.de X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 43495C63.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 ocaml:01 2005,:98 hoax:98 cip:98 cip:98 lambda:01 lambda:01 wrote:01 lisp:01 lisp:01 precisely:01 measurements:01 caml:02 debian:02 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=SPF_FAIL autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 On Sun, 9 Oct 2005, Florian Weimer wrote: > * 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. All the numbers and measurements on my page are for real. As well as all statements concerning my testing environment. And I am using precisely the same diligence with my studies as Jon does with his. -- regards, tf@cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de (o_ Thomas Fischbacher - http://www.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~tf //\ (lambda (n) ((lambda (p q r) (p p q r)) (lambda (g x y) V_/_ (if (= x 0) y (g g (- x 1) (* x y)))) n 1)) (Debian GNU)