3 ms·

> I can has new REAL programming language... that's _faster_ than PHP? :D Have you tried node.js 8 or 9? There's also duktape but I don't know what APIs does

by DiThi 9y ago

> I can has new REAL programming language... that's _faster_ than PHP? :D Have you tried node.js 8 or 9? There's also duktape but I don't know what APIs does it have. $ time nodejs test.js # second run hello world real 0m0.066s user 0m0.058s sys 0m0.009s $ time duk test.js # second run hello world real 0m0.002s user 0m0.002s sys 0m0.000s edit: duktape has a very limited API built in, and it seems one needs to add any extra function in C. It doesn't seem to have file access. Node.js is very fast to me though.

exikyut 9y ago
The problem with super-minimal environments like Duktape, PicoC, Lua, mruby, TinyPy, etc is precisely what you describe: there's no batteries-included behavior. I am seriously considering acquiescing to the performance impact of Go build times (yup, it's slow, who woulda thunk) because of the sane-batteries-included nature of the language.
- DiThi 9y ago
  How fast is a hello world in node.js to you? I forgot to mention my formerly favorite language: Python. It's _much_ faster than Node.js in startup and relatively basic things. Node wins on almost everything I make, though. $ time python test.py # second run hello world real 0m0.009s user 0m0.009s sys 0m0.000s
  - exikyut 9y ago
    Best times from a few "do nothing" runs of Node: $ time node -e '' real 0m0.098s user 0m0.084s sys 0m0.010s Of course on my desktop it's a $ time node -e '' real 0m0.002s user 0m0.000s sys 0m0.000s tiny bit different. Python on my laptop is just slow enough that I really notice it: $ time python -c '' real 0m0.032s user 0m0.022s sys 0m0.009s Of course PHP is all 0.014, 0.010, 0.012, etc. Incidentally, this T43 is a backup machine I'm using while my desktop is on indefinite loan to a family member after their laptop broke. This will be fixed eventually; I'm not sure how. But I've discovered that this old machine is a remarkably good performance catalyst; something that runs blindingly fast on this machine will run really, really well on a faster box - and the thing is, if I write stupid or inefficient code on this older laptop, I'll notice I'm doing it wrong sooner, because it takes less to make this machine fall over from inefficiency. If only I could tell the above to the Chromium team, though... sooo many Chrome issues... (and Firefox is unfortunately slower on old hardware than ever before! >.<)
    - DiThi 9y ago
      It seems almost all the time node.js runs hello world is spent loading its own modules. You should try something like this: // watch.js var file = process.argv[2] console.log('press enter to run '+file) process.stdin.on('data', function(){ var [s1,ns1] = process.hrtime() for(var k in require.cache) { delete require.cache[k] } require(file) var [s2,ns2] = process.hrtime() var s = (s2-s1)+(ns2-ns1)*1e-9 console.log('time: ' + s.toFixed(9)) }) Result: less than 1ms on first run $ node watch.js ./test.js press enter to run ./test.js hello world time: 0.000952656 hello world time: 0.000284171 edit: script now deletes all cache, not only the passed script (result is the same if the script doesn't require others)
      - exikyut 9y ago
        Hmm, very interesting. Something to definitely keep in mind, thanks.
    - bpicolo 9y ago
      Python is faster on my laptop. time php -r '' real 0m0.064s user 0m0.055s sys 0m0.007s time python -c '' real 0m0.021s user 0m0.011s sys 0m0.005s These startup metrics are also super arbitrary anyway, as in web servers code loading is behind your app server anyway (uwsgi, php-fpm, whatever).
      - exikyut 9y ago
        It's possible "php -nr ''" might be faster; -n stops loading php.ini, which is what points to all of the modules PHP ships with. > These startup metrics are also super arbitrary anyway, as in web servers code loading is behind your app server anyway (uwsgi, php-fpm, whatever). This is true; but only about 1-5% of everything _I_ do (as a hobbyist) faces a webserver, and then the things that do require a webserver are simplistic enough that I can write said webserver in bash and run it from socat.

by DiThi 9y ago

exikyut 9y ago

The problem with super-minimal environments like Duktape, PicoC, Lua, mruby, TinyPy, etc is precisely what you describe: there's no batteries-included behavior. I am seriously considering acquiescing to the performance impact of Go build times (yup, it's slow, who woulda thunk) because of the sane-batteries-included nature of the language.

DiThi 9y ago
How fast is a hello world in node.js to you? I forgot to mention my formerly favorite language: Python. It's _much_ faster than Node.js in startup and relatively basic things. Node wins on almost everything I make, though. $ time python test.py # second run hello world real 0m0.009s user 0m0.009s sys 0m0.000s
- exikyut 9y ago
  Best times from a few "do nothing" runs of Node: $ time node -e '' real 0m0.098s user 0m0.084s sys 0m0.010s Of course on my desktop it's a $ time node -e '' real 0m0.002s user 0m0.000s sys 0m0.000s tiny bit different. Python on my laptop is just slow enough that I really notice it: $ time python -c '' real 0m0.032s user 0m0.022s sys 0m0.009s Of course PHP is all 0.014, 0.010, 0.012, etc. Incidentally, this T43 is a backup machine I'm using while my desktop is on indefinite loan to a family member after their laptop broke. This will be fixed eventually; I'm not sure how. But I've discovered that this old machine is a remarkably good performance catalyst; something that runs blindingly fast on this machine will run really, really well on a faster box - and the thing is, if I write stupid or inefficient code on this older laptop, I'll notice I'm doing it wrong sooner, because it takes less to make this machine fall over from inefficiency. If only I could tell the above to the Chromium team, though... sooo many Chrome issues... (and Firefox is unfortunately slower on old hardware than ever before! >.<)
  - DiThi 9y ago
    It seems almost all the time node.js runs hello world is spent loading its own modules. You should try something like this: // watch.js var file = process.argv[2] console.log('press enter to run '+file) process.stdin.on('data', function(){ var [s1,ns1] = process.hrtime() for(var k in require.cache) { delete require.cache[k] } require(file) var [s2,ns2] = process.hrtime() var s = (s2-s1)+(ns2-ns1)*1e-9 console.log('time: ' + s.toFixed(9)) }) Result: less than 1ms on first run $ node watch.js ./test.js press enter to run ./test.js hello world time: 0.000952656 hello world time: 0.000284171 edit: script now deletes all cache, not only the passed script (result is the same if the script doesn't require others)
    - exikyut 9y ago
      Hmm, very interesting. Something to definitely keep in mind, thanks.
  - bpicolo 9y ago
    Python is faster on my laptop. time php -r '' real 0m0.064s user 0m0.055s sys 0m0.007s time python -c '' real 0m0.021s user 0m0.011s sys 0m0.005s These startup metrics are also super arbitrary anyway, as in web servers code loading is behind your app server anyway (uwsgi, php-fpm, whatever).
    - exikyut 9y ago
      It's possible "php -nr ''" might be faster; -n stops loading php.ini, which is what points to all of the modules PHP ships with. > These startup metrics are also super arbitrary anyway, as in web servers code loading is behind your app server anyway (uwsgi, php-fpm, whatever). This is true; but only about 1-5% of everything _I_ do (as a hobbyist) faces a webserver, and then the things that do require a webserver are simplistic enough that I can write said webserver in bash and run it from socat.