[Shootout-list] Stuff (wide range of languages, external libraries)

[Bengt Kleberg]

Robert Seeger wrote:
...deleted
> implementing a number of small, focused tasks. Yes, some of the tests
> cannot be implemented in some of the languages, but that is the way it
> should be. If you're interested in OOP, then you can pay attention to

the only rule (not yet in the faq, though) that actually mandates a 
language is the ''100 lines of code'' which says c#/java. (that could be 
mandating 2 languages. the jury is still out). anything that can be done 
in those 2, in less than 100 lines of code, is ok.
provided that it also is possible to do it in an interpreted language, a 
JIT language, and a compiled language. since there are many of those to 
choose between, and there is no line limit, i think this is not a 
stopping rule.
the ''reasonable across a wide range of programming languages'' does not 
explain reasonable, wide, nor programming languages and is therefore 
sufficiently rubbery to allow anything, or nothing.


>>For non-trivial tasks, it will be impractical to restrict
>>implementations to using identical data structures and algorithms.
> 
> 
> Such non-trivial problems don't belong in the Shootout, as far as I'm
> concerned. Personally, I'd like to see a test that deals with the

...deleted

it is very difficult to bann/allow tests if the rule is ''must be 
trivial''. how does one decide upon triviality?
lines of code is simpler (but still difficult since the faq entry: ''We 
reserve the right to format the code entries as we see fit''


> 
> I tend to think of test size in two ways.
> 
> 1) If it would require more than one small grouping of unit tests to
> show the code works... the test is likely too complex.

while it is very laudable to think of testing first, i still have 
problems with this. it mandates not only writing an interpreted 
language, a JIT language, and a compiled language, but also 3 small 
groupings of unit tests for those languages. plus the obligatory c#/java 
programs and their tests.
is it not sufficient with input and output that must match?
we currently have only 3, but if somebody else is interested i would 
like to increase this.


> 2) If there's part of the test that you'd need an external library to
> implement (in reasonable space), then that shouldn't be part of the
> test. If everyone can make the call to the external library, then why
> bother having it in the test.

i have found the external library email of Mr Brent Fulgham 
(http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/shootout-list/2005-March/001167.html)
and while just presented as a starting point for discussions it seems 
very well though out.
i think you are talking about c) here. and that would not be allowed 
under those rules. if my assumption is correct i think you are a 
supporter of the external library.
nobody against it yet.


...deleted
> will not match quite a few more. Having a wide variety of smaller
> tests, implemented in as wide a variety of languages as possible, is
> "A Good Thing", in my opinion.

i agree. presumably everybody does. but not with the same definition of 
''as possible''.


bengt