3 ms·

I don't care about micro benchmarks, I care about real programs. When is the last time any real user said "Yeah I think I'm gonna go home tonight and fire up th

by fleitz 15y ago

I don't care about micro benchmarks, I care about real programs. When is the last time any real user said "Yeah I think I'm gonna go home tonight and fire up the N-body problem on the PS3". Write a video game in java and then tell me that it's on par with statically typed languages compiled to native code in terms of performance. Also, this language shootout doesn't use optimized compilers for a bunch of languages like C#/F#. Also for C/C++, ICC is much faster than gcc. I would hazard a guess that there are many more than 4 language implementations that are much faster than java for real programs that allocate memory. The fact that Go is on par with java after a couple years is impressive. It took java ~20 years to get to that point.

igouy 15y ago
>>any real user<< Scientists solving n-body problems are real users too. >>doesn't use optimized compilers for ... C#/F#<< What "optimized compiler" do you suggest for linux C#/F# ? Meanwhile http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/demo/compare.php?lang=csc&lang2=csharp http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/demo/compare.php?lang=csc&... >>many more than 4 language implementation<< lemming wrote "Only 4 languages are faster", not only 4 language implementations are faster.
- fleitz 15y ago
  For C#/F# I'd suggest using the Microsoft compilers/JIT as that's a more realistic usage of C#/F#. I realize that the MSFT implementation doesn't work on Linux. Languages aren't faster or slower, only implementations are. Look at the performance of the CINT implementation of C. It's conceivable that on some future computing platform Ruby would be faster than C. (Eg. On a Symbolics LISP machine LISP is probably faster than C)
  - igouy 15y ago
    How is suggesting a C# implementation that you know will not work realistic? Programmers run their programs with implementations not with languages - so what makes you think programmers are confused about that? When they say C they probably just mean the usual well known C compilers. Today, we can only use the programming language implementations that are available today.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      Benchmarking C# on any platform other than Windows with Microsoft's stack, then pretending you are being honest.... that's just nuts.
      - igouy 15y ago
        >>then pretending you are being honest<< ... that's just ad hominem.
        burgerbrain 15y ago
        And your comment notably fails to address my concern.
        igouy 15y ago
        Name calling doesn't rise to the level of expressing a concern.
        burgerbrain 15y ago
        I am expressing concern that you don't seem to see any issue in the slightest with benchmarking an effectively Microsoft language with Microsofts stack. Good job acting indignant to avoid addressing this. Allow me to additionally point out that this account you are posting with seems to be used solely for the purpose of trolling discussions about programming languages. Someone who only shows up for programming language discussions surely cannot be any stranger to a very mild "insult" or two.

by fleitz 15y ago

igouy 15y ago

>>any real user<< Scientists solving n-body problems are real users too. >>doesn't use optimized compilers for ... C#/F#<< What "optimized compiler" do you suggest for linux C#/F# ? Meanwhile http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/demo/compare.php?lang=csc&lang2=csharp http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/demo/compare.php?lang=csc&... >>many more than 4 language implementation<< lemming wrote "Only 4 languages are faster", not only 4 language implementations are faster.

fleitz 15y ago
For C#/F# I'd suggest using the Microsoft compilers/JIT as that's a more realistic usage of C#/F#. I realize that the MSFT implementation doesn't work on Linux. Languages aren't faster or slower, only implementations are. Look at the performance of the CINT implementation of C. It's conceivable that on some future computing platform Ruby would be faster than C. (Eg. On a Symbolics LISP machine LISP is probably faster than C)
- igouy 15y ago
  How is suggesting a C# implementation that you know will not work realistic? Programmers run their programs with implementations not with languages - so what makes you think programmers are confused about that? When they say C they probably just mean the usual well known C compilers. Today, we can only use the programming language implementations that are available today.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    Benchmarking C# on any platform other than Windows with Microsoft's stack, then pretending you are being honest.... that's just nuts.
    - igouy 15y ago
      >>then pretending you are being honest<< ... that's just ad hominem.
      - burgerbrain 15y ago
        And your comment notably fails to address my concern.
        igouy 15y ago
        Name calling doesn't rise to the level of expressing a concern.
        burgerbrain 15y ago
        I am expressing concern that you don't seem to see any issue in the slightest with benchmarking an effectively Microsoft language with Microsofts stack. Good job acting indignant to avoid addressing this. Allow me to additionally point out that this account you are posting with seems to be used solely for the purpose of trolling discussions about programming languages. Someone who only shows up for programming language discussions surely cannot be any stranger to a very mild "insult" or two.