Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
RE: [Caml-list] [Was: Is OCaml fast?] Not really sure...
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: David Allsopp <david@a...>
Subject: RE: [Caml-list] [Was: Is OCaml fast?] Not really sure...
Isaac Gouy wrote:
> Ed Keith <e_d_k <at> yahoo.com> writes:
> 
> > > > I am not asking WHAT the rules are but a JUSTIFICATION
> > > for them (which you
> > > > have been incapable of providing so far).
> > >
> > > I feel no need to provide a JUSTIFICATION to you for anything.
> > >
> >
> > Am I to interpret this to mean that the rules are purely arbitrary and
> capricious with no though behind them?
> 
> Tendentious.
> 
> A great deal of thought has been given to all aspects of the benchmarks
> game.

<snip>

Aw, come on - the suspense is worse than the crime thriller I'm reading at the moment!

Here, given the UK's austerity measures as applied to my imagination, is a logical rather than imaginative argument.

If a great deal of thought has been given to the benchmarks game (and I can well believe that it has) then it stands to reason that someone, hopefully you, knows the reasoning (justification is perhaps too strong or personal a word) behind the various rules and so could write it down. So please share it - not just with us but with the authors in all the languages represented by the shootout by updating the relevant page on its website. It seems safe to assume from the level of questioning (and lack of answering from anyone else) that the reasoning is not obvious so a point or two would help to clarify it and if not close the discussion, at least fairly and squarely move it to the shootout's forums...

Alternatively, if that's not the case, stop dancing around the point and just state that the rules are that way because you say that they are. Full stop. End discussion. On all lists.


David