From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id VAA22950; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 21:37:07 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA22943 for ; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 21:37:06 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from outbound28-2.lax.untd.com (outbound28-2.lax.untd.com [64.136.28.160]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i5JJb4SH028974 for ; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 21:37:05 +0200 Received: from outbound28-2.lax.untd.com (smtp01.lax.untd.com [10.130.24.121]) by smtpout03.lax.untd.com with SMTP id AABAPKFQ6AW7HGEJ for (sender ); Sat, 19 Jun 2004 12:37:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 12593 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2004 19:36:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vangogh) (66.42.38.67) by smtp01.lax.untd.com with SMTP; 19 Jun 2004 19:36:30 -0000 From: "Brandon J. Van Every" To: "caml" Subject: RE: [Caml-list] Great Programming Language Shootout Revived Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 12:46:25 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <1087649466.5274.71.camel@qrnik> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Importance: Normal X-ContentStamp: 9:4:438792110 X-MAIL-INFO: 27803dbd843dbdcd75bd1029c959442010e12010c0351000e494f4 X-UNTD-OriginStamp: CI84cOLHFqh7Zd2QWkwvEFvwyO3T/pIsPQZphDk9MRgojSfAvZ59V4fu8X9Ye5ix X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 40D495E0.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; brandon:99 caml-list:01 shootout:01 marcin:01 'qrczak':01 kowalczyk:01 caml-list:01 'better':99 objectively:01 brandon:99 seattle:99 2004:99 tokens:01 tokens:01 off-topic:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk > > I think token count is the most objective measure from measures which > are reasonably easy to take automatically. If not token count, then > line count, and finally character count. I don't suppose you guys would consider moving this discussion to comp.benchmarks? Not so much that it's off-topic on caml-list - I don't care. Rather, there's this whole community that deals with all these "are tokens or LOCs better?" issues in exceeding detail, and you're only repeating what's been done to death in their archives. If you actually want to design a 'better' language benchmarker, this would be your ideal watering hole. Personally I think the idea of 'token counts' is silly, just not as silly as LOC. How would you ever objectively define the semantic value of a 'token' ? What if my tokens are more dense with information than your tokens? Anyways, my question is rhetorical. I suggest comp.benchmarks. Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA 20% of the world is real. 80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.708 / Virus Database: 464 - Release Date: 6/18/2004 ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners