3rd Annual ICFP Programming Contest Announced

jsarnat writes "A recent Ask Slashdot revealed revealed that there are indeed many programming language bigots (myself included) who read Slashdot. What better way to prove that your favorite language is the best one there is than to win the Third Annual ICFP Programming Contest? The contest doesn't start until August 26th, but they encourage you to register soon. Prizes include: `cash awards, famous texts on functional languages donated and autographed by the authors, and, of course, unlimited bragging rights.'"

Comments

Re:Biased!

[milesegan]

Your accusations of bias are completely unfounded. The paper discussing the results of the '99 contest clearly states the objective criteria used to determine the winners. Entries were judged first on code correctness - each entry had to correctly process all of the test samples. The prize then went to the entry that produced the most highly optimized output. In other words, the prize went to the the entry that objectively produced the most correct and efficient code.

The winners of the '98 contest were simply the best players of the game. What could be more objective? As far as the Judges' Prize is concerned, the contest announcement very clearly states:

Finally, the Judges' Prize is to be awarded, not on the basis of the competition, but solely at the whim and discretion of the judges. Novel algorithms, interesting languages, beautiful code, arresting user interfaces, use of parallelism -- these things may well count for something in the judges' eyes.

This is clearly a subjective decision, but the contest organizers make it very plain that this is the case.

You could perhaps argue that the choice of problems that involve complex translation or problem-solving show a bias towards functional languages, but the fact of the matter is that you'd have a hard time coming up with a good high-level programming problem that wasn't better attacked with a functional language. The winners give much more lucid accounts of the advantage of functional languages for complex problem-solving than I could hope to. They're worth reading.

Another interesting recent study explored the productivity advantages of lisp over C/C++ or java. Their conclusions are also very interesting.

Biased!

[Q*bert]

They say you can use any language you like, functional or not, but look carefully at this quotation from the contest page:

Although the precise task chosen will not be revealed until the contest begins, algorithmic cleverness matters. Performance may matter. Programming languages that help programmers to build complex systems quickly may allow contestants to attempt particularly sophisticated implementations in the 72 hours allotted for programming.

In other words, the criteria for winning are completely subjective. The judges can make whatever arbitrary decision they choose and back it up with subjective talk about "sophistication" and "cleverness", without having to take performance into account at all.

So what kind of programs do you think are going to win a contest called the International Conference on Functional Programming Contest? Hmmmn, maybe programs in functional languages? Let's look at past years' results: From 1999:

The Judges are sure that the choice of language played a role in this team's ability to produce a top entry in a mere 24 hours, and they are pleased to pronounce that Haskell is a fine programming tool for many applications.

(italics theirs), and again:

There is no doubt in the Judges' minds that

Objective CAML is the programming tool of choice for discriminating hackers.

(italics and formatting theirs). Lest you think the contest used to be biased, look at the results from 1998. These ones have a refreshing touch of objectivity, since the challenge was to produce a chess program, and entries were judged by playing each other. Still, look at these glowing elegies of functional programming:

We have no hesitation in recommending Cilk as "the programming language of choice for discriminating hackers,"

(So their tastes are fickle as well as biased.) Though the second-place prize had several strong contenders in non-functional languages like C, all the praise went to another functional program:

The competition for second prize was much fiercer, and, in fact, the second round of games among the six finalists produced a three-way tie for second place, between Brad Kuszmaul's Alpha Beta Soupa ST entry (written in C), Lennart Augusston's la entry (written in C), and the ENS Camlist team's OCaml entry.

The contest judges resolved the tie by playing a final round of games between the three teams vying for second place -- and the clear winner was the ENS Camlist team, who handily won all four of their tie-breaking games (defeating the other two entries both as X and as O).

So C held its own, thought OCaml came out in the end. Still, as you would expect by now, all of the praise is reserved for OCaml:

We note that this OCaml entry beat out 23 C and C entries, many of these being highly tuned programs produced by extremely competent programmers skilled in game-playing algorithms. This is a strong statement as to the performance of compiled OCaml software.

Is it really? The games were not timed. Furthermore, we know from the nature of the contest that performance is not an issue; only winning counts. Is this just a sloppy use of language, or an unsubstantiated statement that shows again the judges' bias?

Of course, they take some extra time to pile more praise on functional languages in the third-place winner, and on the remaining entry:

It would only be stating the obvious to say that OCaml is "a fine language for many programming tasks" -- including some not traditionally held to be the domain of functional programming.

and, of the functional programming language J, used by a single entry that won an honorable mention:

Without a doubt, "a bunch of extremely cool hackers" -- and an extremely cool programming language.

So there you have it. I think these comments show a strong enough bias toward functional programming, and against C in particular, that I would not trust the judges. I am not saying that FP is necessary worse than other programming paradigms or languages; in fact, I happen to think that functional programming is a cool idea. Tools like OCaml may in fact be superior to C (and my personal favorite, Perl). However, I don't see this contest as anything approaching a fair test of whether that is true. I definitely wouldn't waste my efforts entering this contest with anything but an FP language-- which hesitance, of course, perpetuates the bias of the contest.

Judge for yourself, but I say this is a self- congratulation-fest for functional programmers and a dubious test of the true value of FP.

Vovida, OS VoIP
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product

72 hours

[bat'ka makhno]

Teams will have 72 hours to implement a program to perform this task and submit this program to the contest judges.

Three days of amphetamine fueled creative rage, just what I need after meeting that deadline Friday afternoon. Hope the cash awards offset the cost. ;)

--
Violence is necessary, it is as American as cherry pie.
H. Rap Brown

Last Place prize?

[TheNecromancer]

Isn't their going to be a last place prize? The prize could be a speaker at the conference stating at least once that these programmers are "a bunch of complete losers, with no social life to speak of".