From: Joe Van Dyk Date: 2005-08-17T04:26:25+09:00 Subject: Re: Ruby Performance On 8/16/05, Austin Ziegler wrote: > On 8/16/05, Isaac Gouy wrote: > > Daniel Amelang wrote: > > -snip- > > > I highly recommend reading through the arguments and counter arguments > > > before we do a complete reproduction here. > > Thank you Daniel, you might notice my name in those discussions. > > Only as an uncritical booster who doesn't actually listen. Just like now, no? > > > As you've mentioned, other folk on ruby-talk presented > > counter-arguments to Austin's claims - afaict those counter-arguments > > were never rebutted. > > Then you simply can't tell. They were. Basically, the shootout you run > is -- always has been -- and always will be -- crap. You can take > steps to make it honest crap, instead of what it is, though. > > > -snip- > > > I'm just trying to save us (and > > > you) from more of the same-old-same-old discussions. > > If there's any substance behind the name-calling we should be able to > > point-out specific errors on the shootout. > > When the problem with the shootout is the methodology and the > presentation -- without getting into more substantial errors > (statistical problems) -- and the general unwillingness of the people > who run it to do anything to improve the methodology and presentation, > then there's not a specific error. The whole thing is wrong. Until you > understand that there's problems with your whole damned methodology > and even worse problems with your presentation, you're never going to > get it. > > Even if Ruby were to become the best performing language tomorrow, I > wouldn't recommend that anyone pay attention to the pile of garbage > known as the "Great Computer Language Shootout." The only thing > "great" about it is the amount of sheer ignorance that it and its > maintainers willingly perpetuate. Please, tell us how you *really* feel. I feel like there's some bottled up emotions in there somewhere that you aren't telling us.