[Shootout-list] Stuff

[Isaac Gouy]

--- Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> On Friday 22 April 2005 04:10, Isaac Gouy wrote:
> > > These kinds of things are so difficult to implement in most other
> > > languages that programs are either at worst intractable (Fortran)
> > > or at best error-prone (C++).
> >
> > Doesn't that make "these kinds of things" an unlikely choice for
> > any vaguely apples-to-apples performance comparison?
> 
> If you go down that route, you'll end up with assembler programs
> written in all languages. I don't think anyone wants that.

While we're speculating, does anyone want implementations using
different algorithms with different running times? 

Some folk don't -
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.functional/msg/ddb2894d9e3d8024?hl=en


-snip-
> So if you want to avoid bias then I'd say why is there an nbody
> program which is clearly geared up for Fortran 

You assume too much - the nbody program was worked through in Java
without a thought to Fortran.

>(it even requires Fortran-style implementation, IIRC) 

Really - in what way?


-snip- 
> Oh, I had another idea. What about a program to solve x^3 - x - 1
> using Newton Raphson?

What work does it do that isn't already covered by other benchmarks?

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com