[Shootout-list] include all languages in the LCD benchmark

[Brandon J. Van Every]

Brian Hurt wrote:
>
> The problem I have with Brandon's proposal to limit the number of
> languages in the shootout

Excuse me, but I've never proposed any such thing.  I've proposed to
limit the number of *tests* in the *main* Shootout benchmark.  All tests
in the main benchmark should be Least Common Denominator tests, that any
and all languages can be tested with.

Tests that some languages can do, and others can't, should be secondary
tests.  Not the main score waved in front of the PHB's nose.  If the PHB
is very interested in a Garbage Collection score, however, he can peruse
that.  Or a Concurrency / Threading score.  Or whatever.

> Brandon
> basically stated which languages he wanted to benchmark-
> Java, C++, C#, and Ocaml.

You didn't read my revelation of biases very carefully, did you.  Hint:
go back and read the bit about the Nebula2 3D engine again.

> Ocaml is not a "serious language".

I disagree.  It is not a *popular* language.  It is commercially proven
in a few areas, unfortunately not all that many areas.

> So why include Ocaml and not SML?  Or Haskell?  Or Scheme?

Your whole line of reasoning is based on false premises, so can we
please end this chain of thought?  *All* of these languages should be
included.  That's the point of a LCD benchmark, to include *all*
languages and not play favorites.  C/C++ should be displaced by fair
competition, not just because someone decided garbage collection or
threading or functional polymorphism is kewl.


Cheers,                         www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every               Seattle, WA

20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.