On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Isaac Gouy <igo...@yahoo.com> wrote: > It's starting to look like actually there was a point you wanted to > make ;-) You mean the 'no chice' part ? yes.
You mean the why not Data.Hashtable comment ? I don't think so. > > If you change the requirement to something else you'd simply be > missing the point - which was to look at hashtable updates and > strings. I know perfectly well what you want to measure and I was not implying if those measure is valid or not, I am totally neutral to the whole thing. My initial comment was all about 'it seems that Haskell submission is not the typical elegant form' and to me because of the specific you want to measure, there is no acceptable elegant Haskell form. > > Does it actually say that the hashtable updates have to be > destructive? If want to go that route, be my guest. > There's no choice in binary-trees either - you must use binary-trees > and you must allocate all the memory. > > There's no choice in pi-digits either - you must use that particular > step-by-step spigot algorithm taken from that Haskell paper. > > There's no choice in fannkuch-redux either - you must use that > particular ordering of permutations taken from that Lisp paper. > > etc etc Indeed. Your benchmark suite are very specific about how certain things must be done in order to measure a specific aspect you want to measure. > > Forgive me but you do seem to be belabouring the obvious. > I think you are too sensitive -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
