From: Austin Ziegler Date: 2006-04-05T11:33:02+09:00 Subject: Re: How slow could ruby be compared to Python or Perl? On 4/4/06, Robert Dober wrote:> I understand that you are upset, but I *had* a look and I think I have> enough reason to consider the shootout irrelevant: First, everybody> can contribute ones program, like that, so what if I want ruby to look> bad, well easy enough, there comes one example into mind [...] the> program does not even run. The better example is the Ackermann. On Unix, at least, the stack isable to be reset with ulimit -- and the Ruby run of Ackermann does notuse this, even though Ruby's stack frame is known to be larger than mostother programming languages. The Python implementation does some stack manipulation without which theprogram won't run *at all* (even with ulimit). One of the Perlimplementations is so compact as to be unreadable -- and it's done sodeliberately. [...] > So I honestly understand why Austin is upset although, I agree with> you, scientifcly speaking his attitude is wrong. But I believe his> conclusions are correct nontheless. Scientifically, my attitude toward the Alioth shootout is spot on. It'snot only benchmarking (lies, damned lies and [statistics | benchmarks]),but it's completely dishonest benchmarking for the reasons that you'veindicated above, and (last I checked) the website claimed far more thanis possible, especially since there is no control factors or properstatistical analysis. -austin--Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca