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 8D1C2BBAF for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 20:14:10 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AigFAIvy7ExQW+UMgWdsb2JhbACBVpJ4MY4GFQEBFiIirlKHPYkJhUcEimA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,249,1288566000"; d="scan'208";a="68000004" Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 24 Nov 2010 20:14:09 +0100 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PLKmx-0000J0-Dh for caml-list@inria.fr; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 20:13:55 +0100 Received: from c-24-4-7-10.hsd1.ca.comcast.net ([24.4.7.10]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 20:13:55 +0100 Received: from igouy2 by c-24-4-7-10.hsd1.ca.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 20:13:55 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: caml-list@inria.fr From: Isaac Gouy Subject: Re: Is OCaml fast? Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:13:36 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <361805.43543.qm@web120503.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: sea.gmane.org User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) X-Loom-IP: 24.4.7.10 (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Ubuntu/10.10 (maverick) Firefox/3.6.12) X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 poverty:98 writes:01 arbitrary:02 purely:02 interpret:03 benchmarks:07 mean:08 rules:11 rules:11 think:13 though:13 game:13 statement:13 but:14 Ed Keith yahoo.com> writes: > > > 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? Tendentious. A great deal of thought has been given to all aspects of the benchmarks game. > I hope I am misinterpreting this statement, but can think of no other interpretation Poverty of imagination.