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

[Isaac Gouy]

> > 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.

Doesn't seem like the gcc programs "craft an OO system in C".


> > > 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.

Similarly the program entry for C could reappear when C 2010 adds an
object system to the language... Felix could reappear when exception
handling is added to the language...


> > 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.

We could simply remove tests that require some "special" functionality
-  after all there are so many interesting things we can do with
integer arithmetic :-)




		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail