On 9/26/05, Isaac Gouy <igouy@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Will you complain now or change the Ruby script to use this
> > functionality, that allows the program to run?
> Here's how to contribute your program
> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/faq.php?sort=fullcpu#contribute
Obviously, you didn't even read the program to see that it was an
utter cheat to exec the program. The right solution -- as always --
for you to fix your damned run script. Fix that and you'll get results
for the Ruby program AS IT STANDS.
Don't fix it, and my assessment of the lack of honesty surrounding the
Bogus Computer Language Shootout stands.
I implicitly trust Ruby programmers - it's simply unthinkable that any
of them would contribute a program which intentionally cheated. (And it
would give the Perl guys something to complain about.)
I tried to make the call with 'dl', but I'm getting an
error:
(eval):2:in `setrlimit': undefined method `' for nil:NilClass (NoMethodError)
from rlimit2.rb:16
Sorry for the noise, but I'm going to re-post this question
in its own thread... It occurred to me many people may have
killfiled this flame-war topic... ;-/
> Austin Ziegler wrote:
>>> Martin, perhaps you could collect this stuff and put it into your wiki
>>> page for future use?
>>>
>>> Austin Ziegler wrote:
>>>>> Have you even looked at the website in the last 6 months?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. The text that makes a lie of everything you claim about the site
>>>> is still there on the front page, as of 26 September 2005 15.55 EDT.
>>>
>>> And that text would be?
>>
>> Assuming that you actually care, look it up on the archives. The text
>> has not improved since the last time we talked about the alioth
>> shootout.
>
> Martin DeMello suggested collecting complaints on a wiki page, so every
> 3 weeks when someone asks about Ruby performance on the shootout, they
> can simply be directed to all the complaints you've already made.
>
> If for some reason you don't feel able to mention the "text that makes
> a lie of everything you claim about the site" here - just savage it on
> the wiki page.
>
> http://rubygarden.org/ruby?BenchMarks
No, Isaac, I'm not going to do your homework for you anymore.
On 9/26/05, Isaac Gouy <igouy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 9/26/05, Isaac Gouy <igouy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9/26/05, Isaac Gouy <igouy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Incorrect. With a *single* shell command, I can make the Ruby
>> Ackermann run perfectly (and, IIRC, better than the Python
>> equivalent, or at least to deeper recursion depths even with the
>> Python language "cheat"). This isn't undocumented; this has been
>> mentioned to you since January. It has *nothing* to do with the
>> implementation of the Ruby Ackermann, but the default stack size
>> allocated to the Ruby process. It's more restrictive under Windows,
>> and that is probably a compile-time option, but again -- it's *not* a
>> Ruby problem. It's a problem in your methodology and your
>> assumptions. If you've screwed up there, where *else* have you
>> screwed up?
> More abuse? So much for Martin Fowler's Ruby People meme.
>
> Is there seem reason the approaches suggested by Bill Kelly and Florian
> Franks are unacceptable?
I'm a nice person, except to people who demonstrate themselves to be
willfully dishonest, obstinate, and ignorant.
The approaches suggested by Bill and Florian aren't acceptable because
they run Ruby and then shell out to run the program again after making
the necessary environment change. It runs, but it'd be better if you
just fixed your run script.
No humour, either. I don't think that it's just me, but I strongly
suspect that Florian's and Bill's submissions were very tongue in cheek.
Neither one of them is currently cross-platform, as they depend on the
shell command "ulimit". Bill's suggests something that Ruby could
probably do to add ulimit support directly to the language, but so far,
Matz hasn't seen fit to add such. I *do* believe that it was determined
to be something that the environment, not the program, was responsible
for.
-austin
···
On 9/26/05, Isaac Gouy <igouy@yahoo.com> wrote:
Austin Ziegler wrote:
On 9/26/05, Isaac Gouy <igouy@yahoo.com> wrote:
Will you complain now or change the Ruby script to use this
functionality, that allows the program to run?
Obviously, you didn't even read the program to see that it was an
utter cheat to exec the program. The right solution -- as always --
for you to fix your damned run script. Fix that and you'll get
results for the Ruby program AS IT STANDS.
Don't fix it, and my assessment of the lack of honesty surrounding
the Bogus Computer Language Shootout stands.
I implicitly trust Ruby programmers - it's simply unthinkable that any
of them would contribute a program which intentionally cheated. (And
it would give the Perl guys something to complain about.)