So, just to make this clear, you were aware from the very start that
- At 2017 when the study was made, CLBG relied (and still is) on "FFI, unsafe code, and hand-written SIMD intrinsics".
- The author of that paper did in fact mention the benchmarks game.
- The two 2017 CLBG examples that hayley-patton linked are exactly the same in the study's github repo.
But despite that, you decided to waste everyone's time and your real complaint is that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31502504 should have linked at the github links that I posted in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31548339 even though contents are exactly the same (at least as far as the argument is concerned, I have not and will not check if one of the versions has an extra ; or whatever), is that right?
Edit: it came to my attention that you are the one running CLBG, you might want to mention that (either on your profile or on your posts) when you engage in CLBG-related arguments.
- At 2017 when the study was made, CLBG relied (and still is) on "FFI, unsafe code, and hand-written SIMD intrinsics".
- The author of that paper did in fact mention the benchmarks game.
- The two 2017 CLBG examples that hayley-patton linked are exactly the same in the study's github repo.
But despite that, you decided to waste everyone's time and your real complaint is that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31502504 should have linked at the github links that I posted in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31548339 even though contents are exactly the same (at least as far as the argument is concerned, I have not and will not check if one of the versions has an extra ; or whatever), is that right?
Edit: it came to my attention that you are the one running CLBG, you might want to mention that (either on your profile or on your posts) when you engage in CLBG-related arguments.