[Shootout-list] Ray tracer

[Bengt Kleberg]

On 2005-06-19 15:11, Jon Harrop wrote:
...deleted
> Giving a program is the easiest way to get a "formal" specification.

imho a program is over-specific. it contains lots of implementation 
details that should not be part of the sought after definition.


>>if the mapping for all tests is (only) a program, what language(s?) do
>>you suggest we use?
> 
> 
> C++ and OCaml works well for the ray tracer. The OCaml might be easier to read 
> (anyone?). I've never programmed in Java, C# and haven't used Fortran for a 
> long time but I can still read them. So I don't really think it matters. 
> IMHO, it will be more compelling for people reading the shootout if there is 
> a succinct program (like my 57-line ray tracer). Reading 471 lines of Eiffel 
> isn't quite so appetising. :-)

i think you are suggesting that any (computer) language could be used to 
define the test. i think that would make it more difficult to get other 
implementations of a test. some implementors would have to wait until a 
sutable (understandable to them) version exists, before they can start 
on their own.


i do no agree with this idea. i prefer english specifications, with 
details added if neccessary.


bengt