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

[Robert Seeger]

See inline for comments:

On 4/26/05, Bengt Kleberg <bengt.kleberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 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
> [snip]
> 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.

My intention was just to state that I think having a wide variety of
tests is a good thing. If some of them can't be implemented in a some
languages, I don't see a problem in it. If that feature is important
to you (Unicode, OOP, etc), then you'll pay attention to those tests.
If not, you won't.


> 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''

True.


> > 1) If it would require more than one small grouping of unit tests to
> > show the code works... the test is likely too complex.
>=20
> while it is very laudable to think of testing first, i still have
> problems with this. [snip]

There was a slight misinterpretation here. I didn't mean to imply that
such unit tests needed to be written for every test. I just meant
that, as the number and variety of unit tests needed for the code
grows, so too does the likelihood that the Shootout test isn't
suitable to be classified as a "micro-benchmark".


> > 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.
>=20
> 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.

My stance is that either:
1) No external libraries should be allowed (my preference), or
3) External libraries should be allowed as they are commonly used for
the language

For example, when working with Tcl, it very common to use external
libraries written in C. In fact, most extentions for Tcl are written
in C, since the language is designed to be easily extended with it. If
you're not going to allow external libraries/resources as they are
commonly used with the language, than they shouldn't be allowed at
all.

Rob Seeger