[Shootout-list] Re: ring of processes

[Bengt Kleberg]

Aaron Denney wrote:

...deleted

> 
> [sychronous / asynchronous]
> 
> I don't think it matters which the implementations use, and some
> languages make it much more natural to write one or the other.
> 
> Accordingly, Bengt left it as an unspecified implementation detail.

you are correct. i left this out on purpose, as i did not want to over 
specify the test. ''keep it simple, stupid''. i forgot that for a while 
when trying to make a sys5 ipc test :-(


...deleted

> I think this is a reasonable and simple test (though I'd make the number
> of messages the source sends be an input N, and the number of processes
> P be constant, as I think varying the messages is far more interesting
> than varying the processes, but whatever) and should be the one used for

thank you for your support.

i had in the beginning a fixed number of processes, and variable number 
of messages. however, the fixed number of processes made the test into 
one of ''create processes'', and not ''send messages'', for small number 
of messages. i think my current wording makes the potential problem more 
visible.

does everybody understand that ''128 messages'' is per processs? we do 
have a variable number of messages in the test. it is just the ratio of 
messages to processes that is constant.


> ring of messages, while Bengt figures out what he wants for the SYSV IPC
> messages test.  If people agree, I can have the haskell implementation
> out fairly quickly.

i have a mzscheme and an erlang implementaion already done. if people 
agree i will send them in.


bengt