Re: The Computer Language Shootout Benchmarks

[igouy@yahoo.com]

Craig Carey wrote:
> On 6 May 2006 00:34:06 -0700, igouy@yahoo.com wrote:
> ...
> >
> >When F < 1 the result displayed is -1/F
> >
>
> The allegations of fraud have not been removed.

It would be polite to check your assumptions before making public
accusations of fraud.

> There is nothing to suggest that you are an authoritity on the
> topic,

Read the FAQ
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/faq.php#start

Read the acknowledgements
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/miscfile.php?file=acknowledgements&title=acknowledgements

Read the copyright notice in the PHP code that generates the webpage
http://cvs.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/shootout/website/lib/headtohead.tpl.php?rev=1.42&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup&cvsroot=shootout

Read the PHP code that generates the webpage
if ($cpuValue<1 && $cpuValue!=0){ $cpuValue = -1/$cpuValue; }
http://cvs.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/shootout/website/lib/headtohead.tpl.php?rev=1.42&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup&cvsroot=shootout

> and also the data does not provide any support, since
> there is still a mismatch between the numbers.
>
> The facts taken from the named webpages:
>
>  Summary: -1.8
>
>  Raw Data: 7.21 secs for GNAT, and 4.12 secs for C.

More false assumptions - that is not "Raw Data" - those numbers are
being rounded to 2 places for display.

The calculation is not done with those numbers or with "Raw Data". The
calculation is done with data rounded to 3 places - these numbers 7.207
4.118 - you can find them data.csv
http://cvs.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/shootout/website/data/data.csv?rev=1.437&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup&cvsroot=shootout

>
> The bounds are:
>    7.215 / 4.115, = 1.7533414
>    7.205 / 4.125, = 1.7466666
>
> The figure -1.8 is outside of the range.

More false assumptions.

4.118 / 7.207 = 0.57138
-1 / 0.571 = -1.75012
rounded to 1 place for display = -1.8

>
> Now there is resaon to suspect that the purpose for the Intel
> 'half' of the website may be unacceptable to an Ada community.
>
> You didn't put enough words into the e-mail to actually make out
> an argument. So far the topic here is one of getting rid of the
> allegation that final results are falsified. This is not a
> Haskell mailing list that hints the corruption might have been
> a motive by pretending to have a leaked e-mail from a
> benchmark website subvrting bribe-paying C consortium.

The topic here is someone making malicious public accusations based on
nothing more than their own ignorance.