From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 5b1e799cdb,3ef3e78eacf6f938 X-Google-Attributes: gid5b1e799cdb,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Isaac Gouy Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.functional,comp.lang.c++,comp.programming Subject: Re: Alternatives to C: ObjectPascal, Eiffel, Ada or Modula-3? Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:38:01 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <7c41625a-0327-40b2-bc3a-13ebbdd29885@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com> References: <2009a75f-63e7-485e-9d9f-955e456578ed@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <0bdf3c02-0565-40e2-95cc-c7f5eb546313@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com> <7xmy6mzy0q.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <4a714308$0$30229$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <48679a94-4ce4-422e-8656-56bb682b08c0@d15g2000prc.googlegroups.com> <4a71c5f0$0$31880$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <8d2fb978-19d3-46fb-baf3-4e82b5a96ac9@d15g2000prc.googlegroups.com> <4a72d58d$0$31864$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 76.102.15.45 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1249058282 1122 127.0.0.1 (31 Jul 2009 16:38:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:38:02 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=76.102.15.45; posting-account=8hLxJgkAAAAL8xHLJ0ljKM_bUSuq3O6V User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.0.12) Gecko/2009070811 Ubuntu/9.04 (jaunty) Firefox/3.0.12,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.scheme:6246 comp.lang.ada:7493 comp.lang.functional:2572 comp.lang.c++:48859 comp.programming:12197 Date: 2009-07-31T09:38:01-07:00 List-Id: On Jul 31, 4:29=A0am, Georg Bauhaus wrote: > Shaky here should not refer to runs or relative runs of two > specific test programs; the results are stable. =A0However, the > interpretations ofShootouttest comparisons are > less stable, as should be expected (more in an other > post). =A0 So when comparing programming languages in general, > more care needs to be taken when looking at the (list of)Shootoutprograms= . =A0They _can_ be informative of language > features if looked at closely. =A0(I.e., a ranking does not > suffice then.) If we're thinking, a glance at the wide overlaps on the boxplot should make us question the usefulness of a simple ranking: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?test=3Dall&lang=3Dall&b= ox=3D1 > > Sure we might hope a different program would give better results, and > > instructions for contributing better programs are given in the FAQ. > > Better results of programs is not that important here, what is important > is an expectation, namely that the specific programs might demonstrate > eternally frozen, irreplaceable language properties by looking at > accumulated statistical results only. Is that a valid expectation? Does the benchmarks game promote or subvert that expectation, or is that a matter of how specific details are selected and highlighted in other discussions? > Please accept my apologies for being authoritatively > wrong on several accounts. Sorry for misrepresenting > rules. Oh your information was just out of date, so that needed correction. I didn't intend to be so heavy handed - those were ordinary mistakes. -snip-