From: Isaac Gouy Date: 2006-09-18T03:41:12+09:00 Subject: Yet another [computer language shootout squabble] I've changed the subject line - my apologies for not having done so sooner. Austin Ziegler wrote: > On 9/15/06, Isaac Gouy wrote: > > > http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/old/benchmark.php?test=ackermann&lang=perl&id=3 > > So you couldn't find that Perl program in the current benchmarks. > > > We do still show "the obsolete 2001 Doug Bagley Benchmarks", and we > > *do* prominently label them "the obsolete 2001 Doug Bagley Benchmarks", > > and of course they were not referred to by Kevin Tew. > > This is not the 2001 benchmark that we're talking about, Mr. Gouy. > This is the one that you had that replaced the 2001 benchmark. I don't know what you mean. Those "obsolete 2001 Doug Bagley Benchmarks" /are/ the same tasks that appeared on Doug Bagley's old Great Computer Language Shootout. That's simple enough to confirm, just check with the Wayback Machine archive http://web.archive.org/web/20010124090400/http://www.bagley.org/~doug/shootout/ > > > > You may have changed the set of benchmarks. > > There's no /may/ - the benchmarks were changed a year ago. > > You snipped the context in your split of the paragraph. The > implication here is that I don't think you've changed your > methodology, which is what the problem was. Not the benchmarks > themselves. No Austin, none of your posting was snipped, the whole posting was shown. > > > > I'll do some research now > > > and see if you've actually cleaned up your methodology. I doubt it, > > > but if you have, I'll publicly post an apology. If you haven't, you'll > > > clean up your methodology. Otherwise, I'll update my criticisms, but > > > you won't get anything positive from me about the shootout. > > > > > > It will be about two weeks before I can look at this, but I will do so. > > > > > > Do we have an agreement there? > > > > Of course not. > > Then I see no reason to research the issue aside from my own sense of > honour. I'll do it, but you have confirmed for me that I'll find > exactly what I'm expecting to find and that you haven't done anything > to improve your methodology, so you'll be getting no apology unless I > find that -- as unlikely as it appears to be -- you have actually > changed the methodology you use. > > Cluebat: your methodology is and always has been the problem. Until > that improves, the shootout remains completely useless. Are you usually given a blank check? :-) Anyway, I look forward to a diatribe against /the current/ Computer Language Shootout. As a practical matter - it's obvious that this topic has long been tedious to some folk on this list, so let's be considerate and give them a subject line they can filter out - better yet, post the diatribe in The Computer Language Shootout Benchmarks discussion forum http://alioth.debian.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=999 - better yet, post the diatribe somewhere else and link to it everytime you feel the need to make the same points http://wiki.rubygarden.org/Ruby/page/show/BenchMarks > > -austin > -- > Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/ > * austin@halostatue.ca * http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/ > * austin@zieglers.ca