[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Re: RubyâEURO(tm)s not ready - an indepth essay

Isaac Gouy

4/9/2008 4:28:00 AM


--- Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 7:00 PM, Isaac Gouy <igouy2@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 7, 9:00 pm, Austin Ziegler <halosta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Worst of all, the author treats both theAliothshootoutand the
> Zed
> > > Shaw rant as things worthy of positive attention, when both are,
> well,
> > > worthless. TheAliothshootouthas been known to be worthless for
> > > years yet periodically some idiot treats it as serious.
> > Once upon a time, you made a specific complaint that the execution
> > environment, on what used to be called the computer language
> shootout,
> > stopped a Ruby Ackermann program from doing it's stuff - that
> problem
> > was fixed.
>
> I haven't gone back to the Alioth shootout web site in a long time,
> because the problem was originally reported at least a year before it
> was fixed.

It was fixed at the end of October 2005, your mailing list complaints
were in June 2005 - although you were still wrongly claiming it was
broken April 4 2006.


> > Unfortunately, since then your comments about what is now called
> the
> > benchmarks game don't amount to more than name calling.
>
> No, it's a lot more than name calling. It's still treated far more
> seriously than it deserves to be treated. Since I haven't looked at
> the "benchmarks game" in a while (I don't visit places that are
> useless), I don't know if your text is any better than it was two
> years ago (the last time I wasted any time there) to make it clear
> that no one should take anything presented on the "benchmarks game"
> seriously. I'll assume for the moment that you have improved it and
> that now it's because people like this author are stupid and take
> something like the "benchmarks game" seriously when it never should
> be.

Bad mouthing something you haven't even looked at in 2 years, seems
like you already have the material for - an indepth essay.


____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster...
4 Answers

Austin Ziegler

4/9/2008 12:04:00 PM

0

On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 12:27 AM, Isaac Gouy <igouy2@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I haven't gone back to the Alioth shootout web site in a long time,
>> because the problem was originally reported at least a year before it
>> was fixed.
> It was fixed at the end of October 2005, your mailing list complaints
> were in June 2005 - although you were still wrongly claiming it was
> broken April 4 2006.

I wasn't wrong, in that case. Your text was still taking itself far
too seriously as of April 2006. Frankly, the runtime-problems have
been minor issues compared to the seriousness with which people take
the shootout. Look: we all know that benchmarks without context are
crap, and the way that the Perl submissions for some of the synthetic
benchmarks were written proves that. The one thing that something like
the "benchmark game" can't do is provide context, since the context of
benchmarks is a person's specific application needs.

The single benchmark I pointed out was symptomatic, but the problem
was ALWAYS that the shootout took itself too seriously, which
encouraged idiots to take it too seriously. And yes, *that* message
has been constant in my criticisms of your pet project, Isaac.

> > No, it's a lot more than name calling. It's still treated far more
> > seriously than it deserves to be treated. Since I haven't looked at
> > the "benchmarks game" in a while (I don't visit places that are
> > useless), I don't know if your text is any better than it was two
> > years ago (the last time I wasted any time there) to make it clear
> > that no one should take anything presented on the "benchmarks game"
> > seriously. I'll assume for the moment that you have improved it and
> > that now it's because people like this author are stupid and take
> > something like the "benchmarks game" seriously when it never should
> > be.
> Bad mouthing something you haven't even looked at in 2 years, seems
> like you already have the material for - an indepth essay.

I didn't actually badmouth the shootout this time, Isaac. I said that
the authors of the posts were idiots for using the shootout in a
serious comparison.

I'd say the same thing about Rubyists who wanted to use the shootout
to prove their point in the positive. It is, after all, just a
worthless game and not worthy of any time wasted on it.

-austin
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * http://www.halo...
* austin@halostatue.ca * http://www.halo...feed/
* austin@zieglers.ca

Dave Thomas

4/9/2008 12:25:00 PM

0


On Apr 9, 2008, at 7:04 AM, Austin Ziegler wrote:
>> It was fixed at the end of October 2005, your mailing list complaints
>> were in June 2005 - although you were still wrongly claiming it was
>> broken April 4 2006.
>
> I wasn't wrong, in that case.


/me is tempted to invoke Godwin at this point...

Paul Brannan

4/9/2008 1:48:00 PM

0

On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 09:04:28PM +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> The single benchmark I pointed out was symptomatic, but the problem
> was ALWAYS that the shootout took itself too seriously, which
> encouraged idiots to take it too seriously. And yes, *that* message
> has been constant in my criticisms of your pet project, Isaac.

Sounds like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

> I didn't actually badmouth the shootout this time, Isaac. I said that
> the authors of the posts were idiots for using the shootout in a
> serious comparison.

I think you called the shootout "worthless."

The shootout is a metric, and it is a useful metric, just like the
benchmarks jruby and rubinius use to improve performance are useful
metrics. You're right that some people apply the metrics beyond where
their scope, and they are wrong to do that. However, your melodramatic
wording makes it difficult to take this point seriously.

Paul

Austin Ziegler

4/9/2008 3:00:00 PM

0

On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Paul Brannan <pbrannan@atdesk.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 09:04:28PM +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> > The single benchmark I pointed out was symptomatic, but the problem
> > was ALWAYS that the shootout took itself too seriously, which
> > encouraged idiots to take it too seriously. And yes, *that* message
> > has been constant in my criticisms of your pet project, Isaac.
> Sounds like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Whatever. If people are willing to treat this thing with any
seriousness, far be it from me to stop them from being stupid.

> > I didn't actually badmouth the shootout this time, Isaac. I said that
> > the authors of the posts were idiots for using the shootout in a
> > serious comparison.
> I think you called the shootout "worthless."

That's because it *is*. Its latest name change makes that clear: it's
a game. It doesn't actually provide comparative value. It's not
badmouthing to say something that the thing says about itself. My
biggest beef with it (aside from people who take it seriously) is that
it took itself too seriously for far too long. Yeah, there was a page
buried four links deep that said "this shouldn't be taken seriously",
but that's not what the majority of the pages said. For a LONG time.

If, in fact, it doesn't take itself seriously anymore, I have no
problem with the shootout (or "benchmark game") as such anymore. I
instead have a problem with the fools who take it seriously.

-austin
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * http://www.halo...
* austin@halostatue.ca * http://www.halo...feed/
* austin@zieglers.ca