5 ms·

Lua would probably outperform most languages on the list.

saagarjha 8y ago
In what way? Are you saying that Lua would be faster than the assembly that the processor executes to run the Lua program?
shakna 8y ago
I couldn't find a list of the hardware used in the benchmarks, so comparing is difficult, though before testing, I'd lean towards agreeing with you. Luajit is often on par with C, D or Go. However, as C was one of the faster, I'll use it as a comparison. fib.c, compiled with 03: 10.49user 0.28system 0:11.62elapsed #include <stdio.h> long fib(long n) { if (n <= 1) return 1; return fib(n - 1) + fib(n - 2); } int main(void) { printf("%li\n", fib(46)); return 0; } Lua: function fib(n) if n <= 1 then return 1 else return fib(n - 1) + fib(n - 2) end end print(fib(46)) Luajit: 48.66user 0.11system 0:52.95elapsed Lua 5.3: 717.21user 8.40system 14:19.47elapsed As Luajit was so much slower than C for this, which can be somewhat surprising. Luajit would probably beat Ruby, for it's interpreted crown, but without optimisation, it won't beat the big boys. I would say, that Lua isn't a good fit for solving this kind of problem, with these constraints, because every function call requires a hash lookup, which is irritating. Of course, you could use Luajit's FFI to use C's implementation, which would be somewhat faster. Or expose the C implementation as a Lua library. However, Lua is probably also a really good fit for memoization, and other techniques like that. local nums = {} local fib fib = function(n) if n <= 1 then return 1 else if nums[n] then return nums[n] else nums[n] = fib(n - 1) + fib(n - 2) return nums[n] end end end print(fib(46)) This is a fairly naive implementation, but has the same final result as the previous examples... And 'time' is unable to measure how fast it is (Both Luajit and Lua5.3). For all intents and purposes, it's instant.
- drujensen 8y ago
  Hardware used is listed at the top of the readme. https://github.com/drujensen/fib/blob/master/README.md https://github.com/drujensen/fib/blob/master/README.md

In what way? Are you saying that Lua would be faster than the assembly that the processor executes to run the Lua program?

shakna 8y ago

I couldn't find a list of the hardware used in the benchmarks, so comparing is difficult, though before testing, I'd lean towards agreeing with you. Luajit is often on par with C, D or Go. However, as C was one of the faster, I'll use it as a comparison. fib.c, compiled with 03: 10.49user 0.28system 0:11.62elapsed #include <stdio.h> long fib(long n) { if (n <= 1) return 1; return fib(n - 1) + fib(n - 2); } int main(void) { printf("%li\n", fib(46)); return 0; } Lua: function fib(n) if n <= 1 then return 1 else return fib(n - 1) + fib(n - 2) end end print(fib(46)) Luajit: 48.66user 0.11system 0:52.95elapsed Lua 5.3: 717.21user 8.40system 14:19.47elapsed As Luajit was so much slower than C for this, which can be somewhat surprising. Luajit would probably beat Ruby, for it's interpreted crown, but without optimisation, it won't beat the big boys. I would say, that Lua isn't a good fit for solving this kind of problem, with these constraints, because every function call requires a hash lookup, which is irritating. Of course, you could use Luajit's FFI to use C's implementation, which would be somewhat faster. Or expose the C implementation as a Lua library. However, Lua is probably also a really good fit for memoization, and other techniques like that. local nums = {} local fib fib = function(n) if n <= 1 then return 1 else if nums[n] then return nums[n] else nums[n] = fib(n - 1) + fib(n - 2) return nums[n] end end end print(fib(46)) This is a fairly naive implementation, but has the same final result as the previous examples... And 'time' is unable to measure how fast it is (Both Luajit and Lua5.3). For all intents and purposes, it's instant.

drujensen 8y ago
Hardware used is listed at the top of the readme. https://github.com/drujensen/fib/blob/master/README.md https://github.com/drujensen/fib/blob/master/README.md