[Shootout-list] Weekly Update

[Isaac Gouy]

> >> They are aimed at showing off some of Erlang's strengths by
> >> requiring lots of message passing (in the case of the new
"ringmsg"
> >> test) and loading of plugins (in the case of the new "plugin"
> >> test).

> > imo adding a test to show-off the strengths of a language is not
> > keeping the spirit of honest comparison. It's simple advocacy.

> Isaac, you are misinterpreting what I said. I am not stacking the 
> deck in favor of Erlang. Instead, I know that Erlang was designed to
> solve a particular category of problem... If they cannot, that
exposes
> a weakness in their implementation, just as string processing...

Sorry, it wasn't real hard to misinterpret. (iirc Joe Armstrong
suggested the ring at LL)

We quietly dropped the requirement that producer-consumer use kernel
threads - doesn't that test cover context-switching?

The extra thing the new test examines is process/thread creation time.
Creation-time is general enough to apply to a reasonable number of
languages. Once we insist on massive concurrency, the test becomes very
narrow; instead fork a thousand processes and tear-them-down n-times.

That mirrors the object tests: one test for messaging, one test for
creation.
 




		
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now. 
http://messenger.yahoo.com