retard Wrote:

> 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.

No, other JVM based implementations are run with -server.


> There's also gcj which produces native Java(/jvm language) executables.

There's always another and another and another language implementation.


> GCC 4.3 is used although 4.4 is available.

No, 4.4 is used for the x86 Ubuntu measurements.


> 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.


It seems like you want measurements for bleeding edge versions and a bunch of languages that are interesting to you - but you can't be bothered making those measurements yourself.

Oh well.

Sun, 10 Jan 2010 21:36:20 -0500, Isaac Gouy wrote:

> 
> It seems like you want measurements for bleeding edge versions and a bunch of languages that are interesting to you - but you can't be bothered making those measurements yourself.

I'm interested in the bleeding edge versions of all languages. It seems unfair that some languages (luajit, java steady state etc.) get more attention that some others.

2010/01/11 02:27 retard wrote:

> Sun, 10 Jan 2010 21:36:20 -0500, Isaac Gouy wrote:

>
> > It seems like you want measurements for bleeding edge versions and a bunch of languages that are interesting to you - but you can't be bothered making those measurements yourself.

> I'm interested in the bleeding edge versions of all languages. It seems unfair that some languages (luajit, java steady state etc.) get more attention that some others.


It seems unfair that you want someone else to make the measurements that interest you.

Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:17:26 +0000, Isaac Gouy wrote:

> 2010/01/11 02:27 retard wrote:
> 
>> Sun, 10 Jan 2010 21:36:20 -0500, Isaac Gouy wrote:
> 
> 
>> > It seems like you want measurements for bleeding edge versions and a bunch of languages that are interesting to you - but you can't be bothered making those measurements yourself.
> 
>> I'm interested in the bleeding edge versions of all languages. It seems unfair that some languages (luajit, java steady state etc.) get more attention that some others.
> 
> 
> It seems unfair that you want someone else to make the measurements that interest you.

Just pointing out the facts. I've run the tests locally on my machine and wouldn't complain if the tests didn't do unjust to some implementations/ languages. It takes me lot of monetary effort to fix the damage the biased benchmarks do to some languages. Whatever, it seems talking to you is complete waste of time - you have your mission to ridicule the hard work of people who you personally don't like.