I didn't present it as a reliable anything. I pointed out that the parent had linked to the wrong comparison, and linked to the correct one.

I'm happy to be corrected about what you intended us to understand by your comment.

(However, although you provided a different URL you did not point out that you thought the parent had linked to the wrong comparison.)

I thought placing emphasis on the correct one was enough; evidently I was mistaken.

The parent was correct about what their link showed - "F# on Mono seems to be a lot slower than Java 6".

You didn't just "correct" the link to show F# and Clojure.

You changed the link from quad-core to single core and that reduced the difference shown between F# on Mono and Clojure.

Come on dude, is it that hard to change the dropdown yourself??? The parent was talking about CLOJURE and linked to JAVA's RESULTS

Look, the results aren't usefully different: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32q/benchmark.php?test=al...

You can easily get from the quad-core Java:F# to quad-core Clojure:F# by changing a drop-down but that isn't what you did.

You do seem to be using the what you dislike and what you are not presenting as reliable to suggest "F# on mono and Clojure (which is slower than plain Java) look pretty similar".

If you really dislike the benchmarks game, don't look at the benchmarks game and don't show it to other people :-)