[racket] Computer Language Benchmark Game

Hi guys: this doesn't seem to be a very Racket-specific discussion. Do
you mind taking it elsewhere? (Feel free to point us to where you go
if you'd like, just in case others want to join in there.)

Thanks,
Robby


On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Isaac Gouy <igouy2 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> From: Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org>
>
>> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 8:11 PM
>> Subject: Re: [racket] Computer Language Benchmark Game
>
> -snip-
>> When submissions are dropped because of a vague "it's too fast",
>> that's a bias.
>
> For sake of argument, I'll not even bother asking you to show where anyone wrote "it's too fast", let's just look at the reasoning.
>
> Here's a Python pidigits program that's about 50x faster than any of the other pidigits programs, and it was "dropped" immediately:
>
> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/performance.php?test=pidigits
>
> Of course, "it's too fast" is simply the reasonable suspicion that the Python program doesn't do what was asked (and it doesn't).
>
>
>> It's a pity since the shootout started as a showcase
>> of functional languages
>
> When it was started by Doug Bagley or when it was restarted by Brent Fulgham?
>
> What specific things about it then make you say it started as a  showcase of functional languages?
>
> For sake of argument, IF it was started as a showcase of functional languages would it be reasonable to suspect there was bias towards functional languages?
>
> Perhaps your own viewpoint is not unbiased.
>
>
> -snip-
>> Now take a bunch of problems and throw them at a crown that tries to
>> compete for speed.  In such a limited ecosystem the feedback loop is
>> much shorter and the propagation of fast solutions is much more
>> effective.  That makes such competitions mostly nonsensical, since
>> that conceptual advantage of functional languages is practically lost.
>> That's not bias, it's the nature of things.  But when such solutions
>> are *disqualified* and specs change to *forbid* them, then functional
>> languages lose this single advantage and get into a perpetual game of
>> mimicking C solutions.
>
> Back in the day someone complained that it was a "brick carrying contest" and that description is very appropriate - if you don't carry the same load of bricks then you aren't even in the contest.
>
>
> -snip-
>> instead of FP programmers quickly coming up with new
>> ways to solve problems efficiently
>
> Where has there been any suggestion that the benchmarks game website has anything to do with coming up with new ways to solve problems efficiently!
>
>
> -snip-
>> All of this is bias.  (And it's the bad kind of
>> bias, one where one side is completely unaware of it.  All they know
>> is that "memoization" is some kind of black magic that is obviously
>> cheating, and "obviously" we need to make sure that such cheating
>> doesn't happen and demand that no such tricks are played.)
>
> "brick carrying contest"
>
>
>>>  Is there some way you think that differs from kindergarten
>>>  name-calling?
>>
>> Yes.  Please take petty flaming attempts elsewhere.
>
> When all you write is "generally biased" all you are doing is name-calling.
>
> ____________________
>  Racket Users list:
>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/users