[Shootout-list] Re: OO (was Re: process creation & message passing)

[Brent Fulgham]

--- 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