Gerd Stolpmann <info <at> gerd-stolpmann.de> writes: -snip- > I do not say that it is complete nonsense to do this comparison, but > only that it is more specific than a reader would assume.
A reader's wrong assumptions are their own responsibility: http://shootou.alioth.debian.org/flawed-benchmarks.php > The innocent reader expects a comparison of binary tree performance, > not of methods of managing memory (and this is it finally). Perhaps rather than "innocent reader" you mean careless reader who didn't bother to read what the programs should do? http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32q/benchmark.php?test=binarytrees&lang=all#about > The true name of this test should be > "manage_many_small_memory_cells_where_pools_are_allowed". "binary-trees benchmark : Allocate and deallocate many many binary trees" > (It would be actually interesting to compare various versions of this test > with different memory management methods.) So do that comparison and publish the results. _______________________________________________ Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
