8 ms·

Not sure about this code, but in general rust seems to be in the ballpark of C and C++: http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/rust.html http://benchmark

• slacka 11y ago
  Wow Rust 20%+ faster than gcc / C in k-nucleotide and fasta. Then again the Rust vs C++ makes me wonder if this benchmark is flawed. 4.4 vs 38 seconds for binary-trees. Somethings not right with some of those tests. Edit: Looks like an C++ optimization issue in that specific task. Broken down by task, C is at the top followed by Rust.[1] Rust is at or near the top in every category. Very impressive. [1] http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/performance.php?test=binarytrees http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/performance.php...
  • igouy 11y ago
    What you see is a couple of toy benchmark programs being "20%+ faster" than a couple of other toy benchmark programs, in a particular context [those language implementations, those command lines, that OS, that hardware…]. Remember, it depends how you write the programs!
• Veedrac 11y ago
  I wouldn't trust any of the benchmarks in the Benchmarks Game. I say this as someone who spent a fair while optimizing the Rust benchmarks to use all of the hacks the other languages use in some[1]. _Very_ few of the benchmarks are actually fair, and those that are normally don't matter. You're generally better off with random internet tests than the Benchmarks Game, since they at least don't have the kind of cheating-but-not-cheating that ruins the Benchmarks Game. That said, it's totally possible to do assembly-level tuning in Rust and, sans-SIMD, there's no real difficulty with getting Rust to go fast on these workflows. [1] https://alioth.debian.org/tracker/?func=browse&group_id=100815&atid=413122; https://alioth.debian.org/tracker/?func=browse&group_id=1008... See ones with "Joshua Landau" in title. All (but thread_ring, which is literally the silliest benchmark I've ever seen) beat C++ (sometimes by a lot). The disclaimer would be that none of my submissions have been submitted (or rejected) yet.
  • igouy 11y ago
    >> cheating-but-not-cheating << Make your mind-up! Is it cheating or not cheating?
    • jakevn 11y ago
      It's not considered cheating for the Language Benchmarks Game, seeing as it's just a game, but it would probably be considered cheating for a benchmark attempting to compare performance for "realistic" programs.
      • igouy 11y ago
        >>it's just a game<< http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/sometimes-people-just-make-up-stuff.html#name-game http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/sometimes-people-jus... >>"realistic" programs<< For example? "The performance of a benchmark, even if it is derived from a real program, may not help to predict the performance of similar programs that have different hot spots." http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/dont-jump-to-conclusions.html#not-prophesy http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/dont-jump-to-conclus...
        • wpietri 11y ago
          This sort of querulous point-sniping mainly persuades me that the criticisms are entirely valid. So if you're looking to make people think that the Benchmarks Game has some real-world utility, you might want to try a different approach.
          • deleted 11y ago
            [deleted]
          • igouy 11y ago
            To be persuaded on such grounds is unfortunate, when relevant information is before you.