[Shootout-list] Re: Optimizing for speed vs. beauty

[John Goerzen]

On 2004-09-29, Brandon J. Van Every <vanevery@indiegamedesign.com> wrote:
> William Douglas Neumann wrote:
> In any event, PLEAC is certainly closer to being an appropriate venue
> for 'beauty' than the Shootout is.  The Shootout has always been mainly
> about performance and measuring stuff.  You can't put a number on
> beauty, unless you're into gratuitous lying.  Aside from beauty being in

The lines of code is a number that's there and close.

> What the Shootout actually does do, is make it easy to see comparable
> code snippets.  Any given language pundit could submit a 'more

I don't think so.  So much effort is spent on optimization that the
resulting code is such that it would rarely be used in actual practice
in many cases, and in many others is so obfuscated as to make it
virtually useless for learning about the language.

> beautiful' example if they so chose.  Usually this means a more
> idiomatic example for the given language.  But I haven't heard anyone
> say "Please take this code for the Shootout, because it is more
> beautiful."  People always say, "Please take it because it performs
> better."  Granted, people often comment on how ugly and awful the code
> they're replacing is.

Indeed.  That's why I brought this up.
>
> So, I think the Shootout can promote greater beauty in the test
> snippets, but only by getting more language communities 'on the ball'
> with supporting their favorite language.  I see that as the
> responsibility of the language communities, mostly.  The Shootout should

I'm here.  I know Python and OCaml and am learning Haskell.  But what is
the point with providing a beautiful example if most people look at the
performance numbers?  That's why I think the system should support two
classes of examples.

Besides, it can just be forked from the present form.