Hello Raul;
That these benchmarks are testing process and not results is the reason
I am partial to competitions like Project Euler, where the APL/J/K crowd
is cleaning up BTW.
Raul Miller wrote:
On Dec 5, 2007 5:46 PM, Randy MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You can get the result using the same method outlined in the benchmarks:
In my opinion, benchmarks which micromanage implementation, rather
than specify outcomes, can only be meaningful when considering different
implementations of the same underlying language. And, even there, their
only value is in determining how well some aspect of that language fits
some resource constraint.
Extending this kind of benchmark across languages seems to be somewhat
like trying enforce the use of latin verb conjugation rules in korean.
Put differently, in contexts where these benchmarks ("implementation is
enforced") are meaningful across languages, we are probably really talking
about things like dialects -- different implementation of more or less exactly
the same underlying symbolism -- rather than significanlty different languages.
Put differently, if the underlying language took a "one at a time specification"
and turned that into something like J's L2,|.L3, it would do well at this kind
of benchmark. So what do we gain from forbidding L2,|.L3?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|\/| Randy A MacDonald | APL: If you can say it, it's done.. (ram)
|/\| ramacd <at> nbnet.nb.ca |
|\ | | The only real problem with APL is that
BSc(Math) UNBF'83 | it is "still ahead of its time."
Sapere Aude | - Morten Kromberg
Natural Born APL'er |
-----------------------------------------------------(INTP)----{ gnat }-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
