On Feb 12, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Isaac Gouy wrote: > Yeah but it's not too hard to see why the Lisp programmer Juho > Snellman opined on HN "the [sic program] implementations seem to have > totally dived off the deep end of complexity".
That's why this kind of competition is not interesting to me. As it only compares the fastest programs, there's every incentive to submit horrifically complex, optimized-to-the-hilt solutions that would almost never get used in the real world. Rather than ask "what's the fastest this can be done in language X?", we should ask "how fast are the idiomatic ways of doing this in language X" and possibly "how hard is it to do it faster, when those are not good enough?". Possibly just including code size/complexity with the performance metric would do the trick, though measuring that cross-language is a challenge all its own. -- 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
