[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Chicken-users] Re: Hello World execution time

From: John J Foerch
Subject: [Chicken-users] Re: Hello World execution time
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 21:35:04 -0400
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux)

Tobia Conforto <address@hidden> writes:
> "Hello,
> World execution time"—may not be the most meaningful of benchmarks, but it's
> pretty important when you are writing shell scripts / cron jobs / random
> commandline utilities. It also serves to compare the startup overhead of
> different execution environments. So I ran this benchmark for my own curiosity
> and I thought you might like the results.
> Rules:
>   * the program should print "Hello, World!\n" and exit cleanly;
>   * no "benchmark modes" that would hinder real-world use of the language are
>     allowed;
>   * no -e allowed: each program should run from its own file (source, bytecode
>     or machine language as it may be.)
> I ran these on a fast, otherwise idle machine, doing 10 runs to warm it up, 
> and
> then taking the median real time of 101 runs. (So yes, I like the median more
> than the mean, when measuring things.)
> [cid]
> The choice of languages is arbitrary. C is compiled, Mono and Java are
> poor-man's-compiled, the rest is interpreted. As for Chicken, don't bother
> asking: there is but a 2ms difference between csi and csc -O4 -block. I would
> have included Clojure, as I find the language itself not without its merits,
> but the current implementation is 4 times slower than plain Java and skewed 
> the
> graph badly ;-)
> So that pretty much settles the question for me!
> cheers,
> Tobia

This is very interesting.  I would be interested to see haskell among
the set.

John Foerch

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]