[erlang-questions] benchmarks game harsh criticism
Fri Dec 7 14:13:07 CET 2007
your 2 questions are perfectly fine questions. i will answer them now
that you have explained that they are not asides i should ignore.
however, first i want to reach a conclusion to the current subject we
is that ok?
Those were the days...
EPO guidelines 1978: "If the contribution to the known art resides
solely in a computer program then the subject matter is not
patentable in whatever manner it may be presented in the claims."
On 12/06/07 16:35, Isaac Gouy wrote:
> --- Bengt Kleberg <bengt.kleberg@REDACTED> wrote:
>> i know that you do not appreciate meta discussions, but i see no way
>> to avoid it.
>> taking your suggested action i ignored (if you did not write ignore,
>> and think that the exact word is really important, let me know which
>> word to use) the 2 asides in the previous email. there was nothing
>> else, so i had nothing to write.
>> perhaps you did not envision this situation when you suggested the
>> if this is not enough to make you get back to the subject under
>> discussion, please let me know.
> I asked two direct questions, if you wish not to answer them that's up
> to you.
> You keep claiming that the benchmarks game does not have sufficiently
> many measuring points during benchmarking to be able to spot anomalous
> Let me explain it to you one more time - /we know/ that the benchmarks
> game's 3 measuring points /were sufficient/ to spot anomalous behaviour
> in some binary-trees programs because that is how someone spotted the
> anomalous behaviour!
> There's no particular reason you would have known that is how the
> anomalous behaviour was detected, but now you do know - you now know
> that the benchmarks game measuring points have been sufficient to spot
> anomolous behaviour, your claim is untrue.
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
> erlang-questions mailing list
More information about the erlang-questions