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 D24FEBB81 for ; Sun, 9 Oct 2005 18:00:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from nproxy.gmail.com (nproxy.gmail.com [64.233.182.200]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j99G0pqw004800 for ; Sun, 9 Oct 2005 18:00:51 +0200 Received: by nproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id x4so367515nfb for ; Sun, 09 Oct 2005 09:00:51 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=MjQsW21aQMoGQwYT7TOrRxsQVtcLlPCYToq8whBhHQmOnv+sftXSCike1iXlx1R4sDP9LoUVPSDr0QQhc1oP1lAuCLnnrEElhifeQwX20Hcqv+Y4N4WDWJN4vHKFFcPjmANIOd1soySYExfuVryIXhQ7kKIXU7QBH1h5RrXqUuc= Received: by 10.48.235.7 with SMTP id i7mr246689nfh; Sun, 09 Oct 2005 09:00:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.48.30.18 with HTTP; Sun, 9 Oct 2005 09:00:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 17:00:51 +0100 From: Chris Campbell To: padator@wanadoo.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Ray tracer language comparison Cc: Thomas Fischbacher , Yaron Minsky , caml-list@yquem.inria.fr In-Reply-To: <26802443.1128868695235.JavaMail.www@wwinf1535> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <26802443.1128868695235.JavaMail.www@wwinf1535> X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 43493EB3.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 functionnal:01 apl:01 ....:98 wrote:01 slower:01 functions:01 groups:02 seems:03 seems:03 programming:03 perhaps:03 comparison:03 comparison:03 suppose:05 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=RCVD_BY_IP autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 On 09/10/05, yoann padioleau wrote: > > > > > It seems like on the whole a more fitting riposte might have been to > > > provide a version of the SBCL implementation that was 8x faster than > > > Jon's, rather than to provide a crippled version of Jon's that was 8x > > > slower. But to each his own, I suppose.... > > > > What? You call that elegant use of higher order functions "crippled"? > > What a Blasphemy. I am really, truly outraged. > > But on what side are you ? It's obvious Thomas is joking. > Looking at your signature you seems like a big fan of functionnal program= ming > but you are sending opposite signals in your post. > It is not clear to me what is your point. What do you want to demonstrate= ? Perhaps that the comparison is flawed like most language comparisons of this type (there is no APL or J version for example ;) j/k ). The problems have been outlined before and there's is no need to drag them up again, so if you're interested there's always google groups.