• useless variables initialization (my %hash=())
• useless buffering

  while (read(STDIN, $_, 4095)) {
      $_ .= <STDIN>;
      ...
      }
  [download]

  instead of

  while(<STDIN>) {
       ...
       }
  [download]

• some examples seem really partial to me :
  echo `wc` is allowed for bash, whereas the Perl solution don't use the one line solution (print `wc`;)
• ad nauseaum...

    #!/usr/local/bin/perl

    use integer;
    shift;
    while (<>) { $tot += $_ }
    print "$tot\n";
[download]

    #!/usr/bin/perl -pl

    $tot += $_ }{ $_ =+ $tot
[download]

However, as arhuman points out, it looks like the contest is on hold for now.

--
John.

Also, using integer is unnecessary and is bound to slow the code down.

Actually, using integer when you just need integer arithmetic speeds the code up slightly (about 30% in my benchmark). The real question in this "shootout" is if its worth the extra line of code and how CPU and lines of code are weighted in the score :-)

Note also that the main page says Disclaimer No. 4: Please read the pages on Methodology, the FAQ, and my Conclusion before you flame.

In particular, the Methodology section makes it clear that some tests are deliberately written non-idiomatically so that they can test common features of all the languages.

In particular, the Methodology section makes it clear that some tests are deliberately written non-idiomatically so that they can test common features of all the languages.

This notion of non-idiomatic should be clearly defined, to my mind,
it's (at best) unfair, beccause it gives a serious advantage to the ones considered as 'idiomatic' (C?).
Moreover why compare languages if you can't use their own strengths ?

Anyway I don't think that adding useless instruction in Perl make it 'non-idiomatic Perl'.

Furthermore look at other language examples I DO find that some of them use language specific idioms.
(some haskell and ruby code for example)

UPDATE :

From the methodology text :

Since functional languages have such a different mode of expression, I allow them more leeway

In some cases I'm not really measuring the speed of a language, but how good of a programmer I am in that given language.

"Only Bad Coders Code Badly In Perl" (OBC2BIP)

This notion of non-idiomatic should be clearly defined, to my mind ...

True. Many moons ago I actually read a lot of the site and I seem to recall that certain tests were required to be written as close as possible to some predetermined form. If my mind isn't fibbing, that could easily require variable initialization, etc.

To continue the tete-a-tete of qouting:

Disclaimer No. 1: I'm just a beginner in many of these languages, so if you can help me improve any of the solutions, please drop me an email. Thanks.

Disclaimer No. 2: These pages are provided for novelty purposes only. Any other use voids the manufacturer's warranty. Do not mix with alchohol. Some contents may consist of recycled materials.

By the way, the word Great in the title refers to quantity, not quality

I'm doing it so that I can learn about new languages, compare them in various (possibly meaningless) ways, and most importantly, have some fun.

The Methodology reveals a lot.

Measuring CPU
...Each test is executed as a sub-process of a Perl script that...

Measuring Lines of Code
...For each test language, I use a (Perl) script to...

How Tests Are Graphed
...For plotting, I wrote a Perl script that...

Now where's that usefulness metric?

YuckFoo

All languages are created equal*

Use the best tool for the job.

Though some languages are more equal than others

[ ar0n -- want job (boston) ]

Use the best tool for the job.

The job in question is improving some rather public Perl code, not frothing-at-the-mouth language advocacy.

Update: I do appreciate the sentiment wrt. actual unreasoning-advocacy, though.

--
:wq

Ah, that's what I get for not reading the entire post. My language-advocacy-alarm went off a bit too soon. I apologize.

[ ar0n -- want job (boston) ]