[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), ...
write/binary file read/binary join dir random/only read dir
Would Joel approve though? (;