Re: LuaJIT missing from language shootout benchmarking site

[Miles Bader <miles@...>]

Leo Razoumov <slonik.az@gmail.com> writes:
> thanks for a pointer to the thread. Exclusion of LuJIT is very
> unfortunate, especially considering that Ruby is still represented by
> two implementations Ruby-1.9 and JRuby, both on the poor end of the
> performance scale. Well, arbitrary decisions are what they are --
> arbitrary decisions:-)

LuaJIT was removed because it was making python looking crappy... :/

I think a reasonable policy would be to allow up to 2 implementations
for any given language, and include languages that are reasonably
popular.

Including essentially unused language/implementations (e.g. ATS) at the
expense of widely used ones (LuaJIT) does seem pretty dodgy.

-Miles

-- 
Is it true that nothing can be known?  If so how do we know this?  -Woody Allen