From: Isaac Gouy Date: 2005-08-16T04:46:14+09:00 Subject: Re: Performance Ruby Austin Ziegler wrote: > On 8/15/05, Isaac Gouy wrote: > > Austin Ziegler wrote: > >> On 8/11/05, Jeff Wood wrote: > >>> There is an online comparison of MANY computer languages ... > >>> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/ > >>> ... there are some programs that don't seem to have any ruby > >>> solution yet... if any of you feel up to it, ( or if you want to > >>> look at the existing solutions that are there and performance tweak > >>> them ) ... It would be a "good thing" > >>> > >>> Anyways, I hope that provides the informatoin that the original post > >>> was looking for. > >> The best option for this shootout is to NOT implement anything for > >> it. > >> > >> The people running it don't know the first thing about what they're > >> doing and won't take responsibility for the errors in methodology and > >> the fact that their presentation encourages bad interpretation. The > >> Alioth shootout is dishonest to its core. > > This is baseless abuse. > > Incorrect. This is not baseless abuse. It is accurate based on numerous > discussions in which you have been involved. You refuse to acknowledge > that the shootout encourages bad interpretation (e.g., the whole "lang > v. lang" comparisons, the graphs, etc.), and you refuse to modify the > way that the whole idiotic enterprise works to discourage such bad > interpretation. > > > Lothar Scholz is demonstrably correct - some pure Ruby programs will > > be hundreds of times slower than optimized compiled code, and some > > programs will be as little as 1.5x slower. > > That's actually an irrelevancy and, itself, is a bad interpretation. > Hand-tuned assembler will often be much faster than even optimized > compiled code. Do you want to write everything in assembler? I thought > not. > > > Whether that matters or not depends on what we're trying to > > accomplish. > > And what I'm trying to accomplish is to convince people to stop using > your stupid project, because your project is based on dishonest > pseudo-statistical comparisons and idiotic "benchmarks." At least have > the honesty and decency to start admitting you don't know what you're > doing and start *removing* some things from the web pages that encourage > bad interpretation. > > As to your other post, http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/msg/696a3b04c450815c?hl=en& > I haven't submitted a bug because I think that > the whole project is a waste. The only bug report that I'd submit would > be "shut the whole damned things down." Of course, you'll ignore it. > There is also the point that while your pages may not explicitly state > that one should improve the performance of one's own language, You quoted the Shootout website as saying "make your language perform better" Do you now agree that no such text appears on the Shootout website? You also claimed that "The Alioth shootout is dishonest in its presentation and purpose. It does *more* than place "performance" numbers on the screen; it offers an interpretation of those numbers ... all the while pretending not to offer said interpretation." Do you now agree that no such text appears on the Shootout website? > there is > strong implicit encouragement toward such, and the blind acceptance of > tests that are on the verge of cheating (e.g., the Perl Ackermann; the > Python Ackermann isn't far off, either, given that it won't run at all > without one particular non-algorithmic line, while not running the Ruby > Ackermann with OS configurations that *will* let it run) indicate that > you really are as clueless as I think you are. Personal abuse never makes a good argument. Ruby Ackermann does run for N=7 and it's slower than Awk. > -austin > -- > Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com > * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca