[Shootout-list] Stuff

[Bengt Kleberg]

Jon Harrop wrote:
> On Friday 22 April 2005 14:10, Bengt Kleberg wrote:

...deleted
>>sounds perfectly sensible to me. perhaps what is missing is a way to
>>change your programs ''to make sure a wide range of languages would
>>complete the test''.
> 
> 
> But that's exactly what I don't want to do! :-)

that makes 2 of us. i made a failed attempt to argue the benefits of 
such an approach some time ago. nobody supported the idea. atleast one 
person argued very strongly against it.
it could be due to my badly thought out arguments, and i would suggest 
that you try arguing again. i do not think it can hurt.

fwiw, i suggest that you do not to put any :-) in the arguments.


> Knowing which languages cannot be used to solve practically important sets of 
> problems is very valuable information. I don't see any benefit in removing 
> this information from the shootout.

''very narrow focus'' does mean removing things. some people think of 
this as a benefit. i think it is currently too narrow.


> Indeed, such information is already present in the shootout as many languages 
> have yet to implement several problems. OCaml cannot implement nsieve on 
> 32-bit, for example.

that is different. i have made the conclusion that only mainstream 
languages are included in ''a wide range''.
this conclusion is only valid while waiting for a faq entry that 
explains this problem domain.


bengt