3 ms·
Interesting - I didn't know the site gave those numbers at all. Obviously they are not the ones in the main comparisons. Something seemed a bit weird with thos
by sambe 6y ago
Interesting - I didn't know the site gave those numbers at all. Obviously they are not the ones in the main comparisons.
Something seemed a bit weird with those numbers to me. My heavily loaded 2015 MacBook Air, which is also overheating, took <5s to compile nbody with the same Rust version and command line. The ratio remains about the same though - a similar GCC version is also much faster. Turns out, the hardware is really, really old ("Measured on a quad-core 2.4Ghz Intel® Q6600® with 3.8 GiB of RAM and 250GB SATA II disk drive; using Ubuntu™ 19.10 Linux x64 5.3.0-29-generic.").
- igouy 6y ago> The ratio remains about the same though… So for that back-of-the-envelope comparison of compile times (of 300 line tiny tiny programs) it really really doesn't matter that "the hardware is really, really old" :-)
- sambe 6y agoIt matters a lot for the absolute numbers. Apparently not for the relative ones (my measurements were super noisy though).
- igouy 6y ago> How much slower is rust as opposed to C or C++ for production sized builds? "relative ones" :-)
- sambe 6y agoI'm not sure what you mean. The absolute difference appears to have shrunk considerably vs old hardware, based on this single, unreliable example. Probably most people care more about that than the relative difference? It's not explicit in the question (and neither are the benchmarks production-sized builds).
- igouy 6y ago> It's not explicit in the question… True. Although if jonny383 actually wanted to know how many seconds then shouldn't our answer be — it depends.