4 ms·

It's just testing the output. For benchmark each variant is run 5 times with kjvbible.txt as input and then the lowest execution time is used as benchmark.

• gibsonf1 6y ago
  In that case, unoptimized lisp for kjvbible.txt at 0.365 is 3rd fastest beating C
  • coder543 6y ago
    Do you have the same exact hardware that the article is using? Otherwise, we can't say one way or another on that with the data you've provided. I'm also pretty certain the article is benchmarking against the 10x copy file for the actual benchmarks. See this example command in the article: time $PROGRAM <kjvbible_x10.txt >/dev/null So, even if you had the exact same hardware, I'm pretty sure your program would only be a bit faster than the unoptimized C# version. However, it's possible that your machine is a lot slower than what's used in the article, and your program is actually pretty fast -- but without more points of comparison, we just don't know. You haven't run the other benchmark programs on your hardware and posted the results.
    • gibsonf1 6y ago
      It would be interesting to have the article author run the lisp code on their machine for a real comparison - would be very interested to see the results. My machine is a Linux (Ubuntu) laptop. I just sent an email to the author with the common lisp code - we'll se if he's interested enough to check.
      • dexterlemmer 6y ago
        It seems like he did. (Or may be someone else's. I didn't check the repo.) Common Lisp is the second slowest on his results table.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]