[Shootout-list] Ray tracer (new benchmark)

[Bengt Kleberg]

Jon Harrop wrote:
...deleted
> I'd rather scrap the LOC limit and just see how quickly a benchmark gets 
> ported to other languages. Despite its size, the nbody benchmark has been 

the good thing with loc is that it is possible to know that a benchmark 
is acceptable in advance. the ''quickly ported'' rule is an after the 
fact rule. ie, say that we have the following:
''if atleast 15 other languages have implemented the benchmark within 1 
month, then it is accepted''.
it is just as measurable as loc, but we will not know if a benchmark is 
acceptable until after one month. and that might mean that fewer people 
write the benchmark in another language since it is not sure to be 
accepted. which makes it less likely to be accepted.

this does not make the rule impossible, but i think it should be taken 
into consideration.


> Given that Isaac's rule conflicts with Brent's rule, I'd go with Brent's:
> 
> Provide implementations in:
> 1)  An interpreted langauge, a JIT language, and
>     a compiled language.  This shows the range of
>     performance we can expect (and helps to avoid
>     setting too low a value of 'N' for compiled
>     languages, or too high a value for interpreted
>     languages.

it is unclear here if the rule allows one and the same language to cover 
all three examples. if it is only a question of performance, then a 
single langugage is ok.

if my hope for a more flexible 'n' can come through then (1) is 
unneccessary. we will have an autoselected 'n'.


> 2)  An Algol-variant (such as Pascal, Java, or C++),
>     a lisp-variant (such as Scheme or Common Lisp),
>     and an ML-variant (such as Objective CAML or
>     SML).
> 
> Personally, I'd replace (2) with a non-functional (Algol variant) and a 
> functional language (Lisp or ML derived).

i am ok with both (2) and your version.
what does other readers of this list think?


finally i notice that the faq only says ''give some background 
information''. does it seem neccessary to mention that a language 
neutral explanatin is needed? or does the proposed
''if atleast 15 other languages have implemneted the bacnhmark within 1 
month, then it is accepted''
rule handle this? (ie, if i do not give such a description, there will 
not be enough other implementations)


bengt