|
|
|
|
|
|
by etiene
3198 days ago
|
|
|
> Are they likely to be expert in all those programming languages? No, but again, I take paper results very seriously. Misleading results are bad for science, period. Here is an example of more rigorous research: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.00602.pdf > If Lua wasn't included would you complain ? Maybe I would, who knows. I did also mention in another comment it would be nice if Julia was there. It depends how relevant they are for the research being conducted. As a language used very often in microcontrollers, Lua is very relevant for energy efficiency research. I don't know anything about Forth, but I wouldn't just dismiss people saying it should be there with "then contribute forth algorithms to the benchmarks game yourself". |
|
|
"disgusts me" & "pure dishonesty" don't seem like a serious response.
> … an example of more rigorous research…
Which again uses programs that were contributed to the benchmarks game.
> … wouldn't just dismiss people…
I wouldn't just dismiss them: I'd tell them that others have every right to present what seems important to them, and exclude what seems less important -- without being accused of dishonesty.
There's only so-much time & money.