[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Visualising comparative programming language performance
- From: Jerome Vuarand <jerome.vuarand@...>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 14:45:00 +0200
2009/6/5 Rob Kendrick <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 13:43:27 +0200
> steve donovan <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Jerome
>> > Given how most of these comparative benchmarks implementation use
>> > and abuse of C libraries (often for the reason that they are
>> > shipped with the interpreter), I don't think the spirit of that
>> > game is to use pure Lua.
>> So what are the rules? You have to use a stock distribution, and
>> whatever C libraries ship with that? So (say) there was a Lua
>> distribution that came with TinyC (name of package escapes me), that
>> would be game as well, with inlined C?
> The rules are not concrete, but are judged on spirit. You can have
> common libraries installed on request.
But then what is a common library ? Those shipped through LuaRocks?
LuaBinaries? LfW? LuaDist? LuaForge? most of these? all of these ?
What about those with unusual packaging (e.g. Roberto's struct library
which is a single C file without Makefile) ?
I think a fair spirit would be to use the same weapons as your
opponents. If they use fork, use a fork binding. If they use a super
optimized asm library (while not benchmarking asm), use it as well.