[Shootout-list] Re: OO (was Re: process creation & message passing)
Brent Fulgham
bfulg@pacbell.net
Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
--- Isaac Gouy wrote:
> > They are two ways of dealing with the same
> > problem.
> They are two *different* ways.
>
> Why reject iterative solutions for fibo and
> ackermann?
> They are two ways of dealing with the same problem.
>
> (Those tests exclude languages which don't provide
> recursion.)
You are creating a false dichotomy here! I'm not
suggesting it's okay for the C example to forgo
providing an object oriented solution -- I'm saying
it's okay for the C programmer to craft an OO
system in C.
In contrast, allowing an iterative fibo would be
avoiding the point of the test altogether. Persons
with a language that does not permit recursion could
hypothetically provide a solution that implements
the recursion using some strange trompolining or
call-chaining construct.
> > It's a moot point. Someone already wrote such an
> > entry. It's here, and it's going to stay.
>
> It would be disapointing to grandfather carelessness
> and errors of judgement. Shouldn't we bring back the
> C# programs because they were once shown on the
> Shootout pages?
Well, yes. The C# will reappear as soon as the
revised Mono runtime is released that corrects the
thread race problem that caused all Mono measurements
to be invalid.
> All the test pages have a section for "Alternates"
> The Clean objinst and methcall programs are
> "Alternates"
I don't know. I'm not convinced this is the right
way to go.
-Brent