Bill James doesn't seem to have had difficulty answering that question - "Both the C++ program and the Clojure program use a much more efficient algorithm than the other programs. That may violate the rules."
But what about that fasta Java 6 -server #3 program? On Feb 10, 1:02 pm, Andy Fingerhut <andy.finger...@gmail.com> wrote: > It would be easier for submitters to answer that question if it was > more obvious *why* a program is in the "interesting alternative" > program section. Even a brief note in comments at the top of such > programs explaining the reason for their alternative status would be > enlightening. > > Thanks, > Andy > > On Feb 10, 2011, at 12:47 PM, Isaac Gouy wrote: > > > On Feb 10, 1:17 am, Bill James <w_a_x_...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?test=fasta〈=all > > >> The fastest program shown here is in Java and runs in 1.72 seconds. > >> However, at the bottom of the page (under "interesting alternative" > >> programs) there is a C++ program that runs in 0.25 seconds; it seems > >> to work basically the same way that my program does. > > >> So this Clojure program will probably be relegated to the bottom of > >> the page. > > > Should it be relegated to the bottom of the page? -- 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
