4 ms·

Sure. Feel free. I agree it's probably a bit advanced, and it breaks a rule or two of the "constraints" some people seem passionate about and needs to include

by cb321 6y ago

Sure. Feel free. I agree it's probably a bit advanced, and it breaks a rule or two of the "constraints" some people seem passionate about and needs to include punctuation to match results. Feedback-wise, yours isn't so bad, though I haven't tested it. There is definitely a simpler one that looks roughly like the Python and probably runs a bit slower than yours. That would probably be a better/more fair candidate for the "simple" category, but it probably still has ok-ish performance.

cb321 6y ago
This may be more fair for the "simple" case in Nim. import tables, strutils var counts = initCountTable[string](16384) for line in stdin.lines: for word in line.toLowerASCII.split: counts.inc word counts.sort # SortOrder.Ascending to reverse for word, count in counts: echo word, " ", count I compiled with `nim c -d:danger --gc:orc --panics:on` with gcc-10.2 on Linux-5.11 with nim-devel and file in /dev/shm. Runs in about 1.97x the time of "wc -w" for me (.454s vs .2309). If we apply "BS-scaling" to the article table that would be 2.27*.2 = 0.454 sec on the author's machine which would make it twice as fast as the "simple C". Yet, if I actually run the simple C, I get 0.651 seconds, so only 651/454=1.43x "simple C" speed. This mismatch is, again, bigger than Go vs. RustB (0.38/0.28 = 1.35x). My only point is that you cannot just apply BS scaling and these results may very well fail to generalize across environments. For what it's worth, literally every time I re-do anything in Rust in Nim, the Nim is faster. But benchmarks are like opinions...everyone has them and you should very much form your own, not delegate to "reputation". The best benchmark is actual application code. I make no positive general claims, but say this only because Rust people so often do. { EDIT: I think it is generally a big mistake to make many assumptions about prog.lang performance, especially if the assuming is on the "must be fast" side. }
- chris_st 6y ago
  Thanks! That's a much cleaner implementation, and I learned some cool nim. I got a note on GitHub with a similar implementation, so I went with theirs. And, cool, "BS-scaling" is my new term of art :-)

by cb321 6y ago

cb321 6y ago

This may be more fair for the "simple" case in Nim. import tables, strutils var counts = initCountTable[string](16384) for line in stdin.lines: for word in line.toLowerASCII.split: counts.inc word counts.sort # SortOrder.Ascending to reverse for word, count in counts: echo word, " ", count I compiled with `nim c -d:danger --gc:orc --panics:on` with gcc-10.2 on Linux-5.11 with nim-devel and file in /dev/shm. Runs in about 1.97x the time of "wc -w" for me (.454s vs .2309). If we apply "BS-scaling" to the article table that would be 2.27*.2 = 0.454 sec on the author's machine which would make it twice as fast as the "simple C". Yet, if I actually run the simple C, I get 0.651 seconds, so only 651/454=1.43x "simple C" speed. This mismatch is, again, bigger than Go vs. RustB (0.38/0.28 = 1.35x). My only point is that you cannot just apply BS scaling and these results may very well fail to generalize across environments. For what it's worth, literally every time I re-do anything in Rust in Nim, the Nim is faster. But benchmarks are like opinions...everyone has them and you should very much form your own, not delegate to "reputation". The best benchmark is actual application code. I make no positive general claims, but say this only because Rust people so often do. { EDIT: I think it is generally a big mistake to make many assumptions about prog.lang performance, especially if the assuming is on the "must be fast" side. }

chris_st 6y ago
Thanks! That's a much cleaner implementation, and I learned some cool nim. I got a note on GitHub with a similar implementation, so I went with theirs. And, cool, "BS-scaling" is my new term of art :-)