No D in Great Computer Language Shootout?

[Bill Baxter]

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Isaac Gouy <igouy2 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> merlin wrote:
>> do you think that D2 would be worth including at some point in the
>> future if we had some benchmark implementations showing off some of it's
>> more functional nature?
>
> Last year I quadrupled what I have to do: by making measurements on 4 different
> cpu/os configurations - x86 x64 quad-core one-core.

For what it's worth, I think having more languages is more interesting
than more machines.
It's called "The Computer Language Benchmarks Game" and not the
"Computer architectures Benchmarks Game", and comparing the benchmarks
of different languages is why most people go there.   The site doesn't
even support making comparisons between benchmarks run on different
architectures, so I doubt many people go there to make such
comparisons.

So to me, at least, there seems to be less value added by having more
machines than value added by having more languages.

If it were me, I'd drop everything but the 4-core x64.  Going forward,
both x86 and single core don't matter so much.  It might still be
interesting to have a single core result, but I see no reason to keep
x86 around if the purpose is to benchmark languages and not machines.

--bb