> ::Jeff Meister

>Everyone in this thread is capable of reading your site and has
>probably already done so. We know what your rules are for
>binary-trees; repeating them does not help. 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. It makes your results unrealistic, and an
>unrealistic benchmark is misleading, or at best merely useless. You
>are free to tersely reject our constructive criticism, but the only
>meaningful consequence will be that OCaml users consider the shootout
>untrustworthy and completely ignore its results... what good are the
>"language comparisons" your project makes if the communities behind
>those languages don't support your benchmarking methods?

+1. Seriously, Isaac, try to calm down, everything is fine. You might want
to read what others write, I have the feeling that many people were making
valid points, whereas you have mostly been turning down any objection by
pointing people to the same webpage and again.

Andrew.