[Shootout-list] Weekly Update

[Bengt Kleberg]

Isaac Gouy wrote:
>>it would actually be a good thing (tm) to only allow object oriented 
>>languages in these 2 tests.
> 
> 
> And set the weight for those tests in CRAPS to zero.

the wheight is up to the person using craps, right? or is craps favoring 
some things in its default?
you are probably right here, but my instinctive feeling would be to 
leave the weight at 1. surely that is the best default for all the tests?


...deleted
> A naive approach would be to take the claims of the language designers
> at face value. If they claim the language is OO then believe them.

not very scientific. but i think it has lots of good points in its favour.


> Scheme - if it was an OO language why would anyone need an
> object-oriented extension to the programming language Scheme?
> "Schematic: A Concurrent Object-Oriented Extension to Scheme"

the problem/good thing (tm) with scheme is that it is very low level. 
you can (often very simply, because scheme is also very high level) 
build all other types of languge constructs on top of it.
so schemers can choose between objects, modules, namespaces and units. 
all doing almost the same thing.


bengt