From: Austin Ziegler Date: 2005-09-27T05:06:08+09:00 Subject: Re: Relative speed of Ruby vs Java for a large compiled app like Freenet On 9/26/05, Isaac Gouy wrote: > Have you even looked at the website in the last 6 months? Yes. The text that makes a lie of everything you claim about the site is still there on the front page, as of 26 September 2005 15.55 EDT. Further, the incorrect Ackermann result for Ruby (e.g., "error") is still there (I've shown you at least four times how to fix that problem -- and yet you still don't fix it -- and it has nothing to do with the correctly implemented program, it has everything to do with the test script). The default Perl program is still improper (Perl #4 is the only one that should be on the default list), Perl, Perl#2, and Perl#3 all belong on the "interesting alternative implementations" only. Indeed, the Python one still has a line of code that modifies the same stuff as what Ruby requires you modify outside of the program (where this properly belongs!). Without this line, *none* of the Python runs works. I pick on Ackermann, but the same flaws I pointed out in January ... are still there. Obviously, neither you nor anyone else running the Bogus Computer Language Shootout wants to fix any of this and therefore are demonstrably dishonest. At least as concerns this. -austin -- Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca