Nick Sabalausky, el 12 de diciembre a las 00:10 me escribiste:
> "Isaac Gouy" <igouy2@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hfurj4$1n9j$1@digitalmars.com...
> > Walter Bright wrote:
> >> The link appears to be dead.
> >
> > The link appears to work just fine from Mozilla Firefox.
> 
> I'm on firefox, and it's giving me some problem with the certificate.

I think there is no problem with the certificate, it's just not signed by any certifiying authority.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Si le decía "Vamos al cine, rica"
Me decía "Veamos una de Kusturica"
Si le decía "Vamos a oler las flores"
Me hablaba de Virginia Wolf y sus amores
Me hizo mucho mal la cumbiera intelectual

Isaac Gouy wrote:
> bearophile:
>> I think the notgentle person that manages the Shootout site has removed D
>> because D programs were too much similar to the C programs.
> 
> I removed D because I started measuring on 4 different os/machine configurations
> instead of just 1 machine.
> 
> https://alioth.debian.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=2839
> 
> I also removed a whole bunch of other language implementations and that upset lots
> of other people.

do you think that D2 would be worth including at some point in the future if we had some benchmark implementations showing off some of it's more functional nature?

merlin

merlin wrote:
> do you think that D2 would be worth including at some point in the future if we had some benchmark implementations showing off some of it's more functional nature?

Last year I quadrupled what I have to do: by making measurements on 4 different cpu/os configurations - x86 x64 quad-core one-core.

To reduce what I have to do: I asked - Can I think of reasons /not to include/ such and such a language implementation?

Common sense tells me not to include more languages, curiosity and fun tell me to include just this one more - I'm trying /not to include/ more languages.


There seems to be a D benchmarking project
   http://dbench.octarineparrot.com/

Couldn't that be more of a community project, extended, kept up to date, optimized for search engines, ...

Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:51:42 +0000, Isaac Gouy wrote:

> merlin wrote:
>> do you think that D2 would be worth including at some point in the future if we had some benchmark implementations showing off some of it's more functional nature?
> 
> Last year I quadrupled what I have to do: by making measurements on 4 different cpu/os configurations - x86 x64 quad-core one-core.
> 
> To reduce what I have to do: I asked - Can I think of reasons /not to include/ such and such a language implementation?
> 
> Common sense tells me not to include more languages, curiosity and fun tell me to include just this one more - I'm trying /not to include/ more languages.
> 
> 
> There seems to be a D benchmarking project
>    http://dbench.octarineparrot.com/
> 
> Couldn't that be more of a community project, extended, kept up to date, optimized for search engines, ...

While I agree that measuring on the various configurations is a tedious and laboursome task, having the "unofficial" sources for languages not listed on the benchmark pages available in the shootout repository would help one in making his/hers own unofficial benchmarks. For example I often like to perform the JVM language benchmarks on various VMs and configurations so the default results have no value to me. I often convert code from some high level language to D, so having D in the tests would help in this regard, also.

retard wrote:
-snip-
> having the "unofficial" sources for languages not
> listed on the benchmark pages available in the shootout repository would
> help one in making his/hers own unofficial benchmarks

I'm probably misunderstanding your point, but... these days there are many places where you can have a source code repository for free, for example -

http://code.google.com/p/support/wiki/GettingStarted

Thu, 17 Dec 2009 19:37:19 +0000, Isaac Gouy wrote:

> retard wrote:
> -snip-
>> having the "unofficial" sources for languages not listed on the benchmark pages available in the shootout repository would help one in making his/hers own unofficial benchmarks
> 
> I'm probably misunderstanding your point, but... these days there are many places where you can have a source code repository for free, for example -
> 
> http://code.google.com/p/support/wiki/GettingStarted

My point was that the language shootout has a lot more publicity than some 3rd party mini benchmark site. Almost everyone knows the site.

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Isaac Gouy <igouy2@yahoo.com> wrote:
> merlin wrote:
>> do you think that D2 would be worth including at some point in the future if we had some benchmark implementations showing off some of it's more functional nature?
>
> Last year I quadrupled what I have to do: by making measurements on 4 different cpu/os configurations - x86 x64 quad-core one-core.

For what it's worth, I think having more languages is more interesting
than more machines.
It's called "The Computer Language Benchmarks Game" and not the
"Computer architectures Benchmarks Game", and comparing the benchmarks
of different languages is why most people go there.   The site doesn't
even support making comparisons between benchmarks run on different
architectures, so I doubt many people go there to make such
comparisons.

So to me, at least, there seems to be less value added by having more machines than value added by having more languages.

If it were me, I'd drop everything but the 4-core x64.  Going forward, both x86 and single core don't matter so much.  It might still be interesting to have a single core result, but I see no reason to keep x86 around if the purpose is to benchmark languages and not machines.

--bb

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009, Bill Baxter wrote
> If it were me, I'd drop everything but the 4-core x64.

It can be you - just make the measurements and publish them.

Thu, 17 Dec 2009 retard wrote

> My point was that the language shootout has a lot more publicity than some 3rd party mini benchmark site. Almost everyone knows the site.

That isn't accidental.

Put the effort into making an interesting D benchmark site and making it well known.

Sat, 26 Dec 2009 20:27:43 +0000, Isaac Gouy wrote:

> Thu, 17 Dec 2009 retard wrote
> 
>> My point was that the language shootout has a lot more publicity than some 3rd party mini benchmark site. Almost everyone knows the site.
> 
> That isn't accidental.
> 
> Put the effort into making an interesting D benchmark site and making it well known.

I don't like benchmarks that advertise a single language. I think yours is just fine, but it could support the PL diversity a bit more. I know adding more language support and more testable features requires extra effort, but IMHO the test has become less and less useful now that all interesting languages suddenly disappeared.

Another thing, probably all JVM language implementations benefit from - server switch or "steady state". But you only list those results for Java. There's also gcj which produces native Java(/jvm language) executables.

GCC 4.3 is used although 4.4 is available. It seems I'm using 4.4.2 and have been using 4.4 for a long while - I even compile my kernel with it despite all warnings. It would be interesting to know how much faster the new one is. And how much faster the development version of 4.5 is. Same thing with Java 7 / jvm languages - the early access version is already out and has much better support for scalar replacement and other optimizations than the currently tested version. I made a small test run and Java 7 executed one of the tests in 50% less time compared to Java 6.