Jeff Meister <nanaki <at> gmail.com> writes:


> We know what your rules are for
> binary-trees; repeating them does not help. 

When Christophe TROESTLER wrongly states - "OCaml is not authorized to make use
of its very own library!" - he shows that those rules are not known.


> Richard's objection, which you dismissed out of hand, was that your 
> no-GC-tuning rule is silly in the light of actual uses of garbage collected
> programming languages on modern processors. 

When said Richard opines about programs he apparently hasn't bothered to read, I
take that as a sign his opinions might not be based on anything solid.


> It makes your results unrealistic, and an
> unrealistic benchmark is misleading, or at best merely useless.

You should think that benchmarks (not just these) are unrealistic - your
application is the ultimate benchmark.

Useless? Wouldn't that depend on the objectives? The post you replied to
linked-to a 3 line statement of objectives - did you read it? 


> You are free to tersely reject our constructive criticism

Do you really think saying something is "ludicrous" or "silly" is constructive
criticism? :-)