[Shootout-list] Ray tracer developments

[Isaac Gouy]

--- Brent Fulgham <bfulg@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> --- Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Given that the OCaml implementation is much shorter,
> > am I allowed to use this "room" to implement a 
> > slightly more efficient algorithm?
> [ ... ]
> > This reduces the time taken from 19.5s to 17.25s,
> > compared to 17.3s for the 
> > C++. The LOC has gone up from 69 to 80.
> 
> This is interesting -- it's a bonafide "in the wild"
> example of two competing algorithms.  You are in
> effect implementing a back-face culling routine,
> which speeds up the Ocaml version.
> 
> While I think this is probably fair (since it's a
> 'same thing' test), I would be hard pressed to now
> prohibit this optimization from the C++ version,
> even though this adds more lines to the C++ version.
> This change would return us to our former rankings,
> so what have we gained?
> 
> Comments from everyone?

Did I mention "arms race" :-)
 

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