[Shootout-list] Updates for Haskell benchmarks.

[Brent A. Fulgham]

JP Bernardy wrote:

>--- Isaac Gouy <igouy2@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>tests like Sieve are "same way" (which begs the question "same as what?"
>> - in the original presumably the same as C).
>>
>>"Since the purpose of the same way tests is to try to compare, side by
>>side, the same kind of operation in one language as in another, they
>>often use code that is naive and unidiomatic by design."
>>    
>>
>True enough, but a lot of latitude has already been
>allowed... 
>
>"Since functional languages have such a different mode
>of expression, they are allowed more leeway"
>
>I personally prefer to interpret the "same way" as
>"using the same algorithm".
>  
>
I've given this a lot of thought over the past couple of weeks.  Even 
Doug Bagley mentioned in an e-mail to me that if he had to do it over 
again, he would not have used the "same way" requirement, since it 
generated too much angst and unhappiness, without providing much benefit.

I think we should revise the shootout to require that all languages 
present solutions in their most idiomatic form, so that 
single-assignment languages aren't force to jump through hoops to give 
the illusion of update.

>Since the shootout is supposed to evaluate languages,
>I think resorting to such techniques can give a wrong
>idea of what haskell is, and thus should be avoided.
>  
>
So, we need to do the following:

1.  Modify those language entries that seem to be unidiomatic.
2.  Possibly extend the size of the data sets required to run the tests 
so that enough time is required to provide meaningful measurements.

-Brent