Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
Ray tracer language comparison
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Thomas Fischbacher <Thomas.Fischbacher@P...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Ray tracer language comparison

On Sun, 9 Oct 2005, Florian Weimer wrote:

> * Thomas Fischbacher:
> 
> > I just extended my analysis by another implementation in yet another 
> > language. This time, it's "Steel Bank Common Lisp".
> 
> Is this some kind of elaborate hoax?  If it is, I don't get it?
> 
> "OCaml" vs. "Objective Caml", "SBCL" vs. "Steel Bank Common Lisp",
> "1/8" vs. "1/10" -- all these comparisons are a bit strange.

All the numbers and measurements on my page are for real. As well as all 
statements concerning my testing environment. And I am using precisely the 
same diligence with my studies as Jon does with his.

-- 
regards,               tf@cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de              (o_
 Thomas Fischbacher -  http://www.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~tf  //\
(lambda (n) ((lambda (p q r) (p p q r)) (lambda (g x y)           V_/_
(if (= x 0) y (g g (- x 1) (* x y)))) n 1))                  (Debian GNU)