[REBOL] Re: RFC: Cross-language benchmark proposal
From: edanaii:cox at: 8-Nov-2002 18:40
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.
--
Sincerely, | There are many humorous things in the world: among
Ed Dana | them the white man's notion that he is less savage
Software Developer | than the other savages.
1Ghz Athlon Amiga | -- Mark Twain
