Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search

[REBOL] Re: RFC: Cross-language benchmark proposal

From: carl:cybercraft at: 9-Nov-2002 18:42

On 09-Nov-02, Ed Dana wrote:
> Carl Read wrote: >> Those are good points. I do think there's room for both "Standard" >> and "Custom" algorithms though, as they show up different strengths >> in a language. The standard ones could be considered to be >> comparing raw performance, whereas with the custom ones you'd be >> comparing how programmers would normally approach a given problem >> in the different languages. What would be considered a normal >> approach is subjective of course, but if the committee in charge of >> choosing an example all agree that it's both readable and elegant >> and not unusually tricky code, then that should be good enough. I >> feel custom code would give a better indication of developement >> time and ease of maintainance than standard algorithms, as well as >> showing off "the REBOL way" of writing code. > The algorithm for any program should be specified in simple English. > It should be void of any technical references nor should it suggest > any technical solutions. > For example, the algorithm for the RandomCopy procedure I mentioned > earlier is: > * Specify Source Directory > * Specify Target Directory or File > 1 Get all the files in the Source Directory. > 2 Choose one file randomly. > 3 Copy it to the Target File or Directory. > Stating it this way keeps it at a "logical" level and should avoid > any "subjective" issues as the only constraints here are the > resources being utilized. I.e. Files and directories.
Okay. And I'd write that something like this, (though with a filled header of course), ... rebol [] dir: %test-dir/ file: %test-dir/random-file write/binary file read/binary join dir random/only read dir Would Joel approve though? (; -- Carl Read