3 ms·

>>I don't think there has ever been a point in history which it [C++] doesn't cream Java<< Still waiting for that faster C++ fannkuch-redux program (and still

by igouy 15y ago

>>I don't think there has ever been a point in history which it [C++] doesn't cream Java<< Still waiting for that faster C++ fannkuch-redux program (and still waiting for a C fannkuch-redux program that uses multi core). http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=fannkuchredux&lang=all http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=fa... >>when you weight by funding<< Please show total $$$ amounts spent on the development of each programming language over the last several decades - so we can weight by funding. (Should funding for Plan 9 compilers be accounted as funding for Go? Should funding for GCC compilers be accounted as funding for GCCGO?) >>I find their Fortran statistic suspect as well ... At least in scientific computing...<< When you don't look, you won't find - http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/performance.php?test=nbody http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/performance.php?test=... http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/performance.php?test=spectralnorm http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/performance.php?test=...

burgerbrain 15y ago
I don't have the time to, nor do I care to, evaluate the legitimacy of their benchmarking suite. But, are you honestly suggesting that Java hasn't had dramatically more corporate funding than Go? Don't be absurd.
- igouy 15y ago
  Here's what you claimed - "but when you weight by funding, compiled languages clean house". But you don't seem to have any information at all on $$$ amounts spent on the development of compiled languages (C, C++, Fortran, ...) compared to others (Java). Obviously you don't know what would result "when you weight by funding".
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    If you want to ask the GCC folk for an estimate of how much of their development has been done while on the payroll of other companies, feel free to do so. I expect you will find that it is somewhere within a few orders of magnitude as what was spent on Java by Sun in the past 2 decades. In short, my suggestion is that shittons of money has been spent on Java while relatively little money has been spent on Go. Yet somehow they are currently pretty evenhanded. You haven't been able to provide any sources that suggest other than this rather sensible claim. Funny how that works.
    - igouy 15y ago
      > my suggestion is that ... Here's what you claimed - "but when you weight by funding, compiled languages clean house". Do you wish to abandon that claim?
      - burgerbrain 15y ago
        Not in the slightest. Do you wish to address it?
justincormack 15y ago
The fannkuch benchmark is one where Go beats Java, and has a hugely better memory usage. But these benchmarks are highly suspect (they dropped LauJIT recentl despite it being the fastest dynamic language). C does not have a standard threading library, which is why there is no benchmark. Plan 9 did not have a lot of funding. Java did.
- igouy 15y ago
  >>beats Java, and has a hugely better memory usage<< Do you understand that's the default JVM memory allocation? >>But these benchmarks are highly suspect...<< But "highly suspect" is just name calling. >>C does not have a standard threading library, which is why there is no benchmark.<< No it is isn't, here's a C program that uses pthread for multi-core http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/program.php?test=mandelbrot&lang=gcc&id=6 http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/program.php?test=mand...
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    Pthreads is not part of any of the C standards. Your credibility is sorely hurting.
    - igouy 15y ago
      Thank you for your Red Herring. 1) Where did anyone say pthreads was part of the C standards? 2) As I said, "C does not have a standard threading library" is not the reason why there's no C fannkuch-redux program that uses multi core.
      - burgerbrain 15y ago
        C does not have a standard threading library. Pthreads is a threading library for C that happens to be standardized. The difference between these two statements, while perhaps subtle, is quite massive.

by igouy 15y ago

burgerbrain 15y ago

I don't have the time to, nor do I care to, evaluate the legitimacy of their benchmarking suite. But, are you honestly suggesting that Java hasn't had dramatically more corporate funding than Go? Don't be absurd.

igouy 15y ago
Here's what you claimed - "but when you weight by funding, compiled languages clean house". But you don't seem to have any information at all on $$$ amounts spent on the development of compiled languages (C, C++, Fortran, ...) compared to others (Java). Obviously you don't know what would result "when you weight by funding".
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  If you want to ask the GCC folk for an estimate of how much of their development has been done while on the payroll of other companies, feel free to do so. I expect you will find that it is somewhere within a few orders of magnitude as what was spent on Java by Sun in the past 2 decades. In short, my suggestion is that shittons of money has been spent on Java while relatively little money has been spent on Go. Yet somehow they are currently pretty evenhanded. You haven't been able to provide any sources that suggest other than this rather sensible claim. Funny how that works.
  - igouy 15y ago
    > my suggestion is that ... Here's what you claimed - "but when you weight by funding, compiled languages clean house". Do you wish to abandon that claim?
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      Not in the slightest. Do you wish to address it?

justincormack 15y ago

The fannkuch benchmark is one where Go beats Java, and has a hugely better memory usage. But these benchmarks are highly suspect (they dropped LauJIT recentl despite it being the fastest dynamic language). C does not have a standard threading library, which is why there is no benchmark. Plan 9 did not have a lot of funding. Java did.

igouy 15y ago
>>beats Java, and has a hugely better memory usage<< Do you understand that's the default JVM memory allocation? >>But these benchmarks are highly suspect...<< But "highly suspect" is just name calling. >>C does not have a standard threading library, which is why there is no benchmark.<< No it is isn't, here's a C program that uses pthread for multi-core http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/program.php?test=mandelbrot&lang=gcc&id=6 http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/program.php?test=mand...
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  Pthreads is not part of any of the C standards. Your credibility is sorely hurting.
  - igouy 15y ago
    Thank you for your Red Herring. 1) Where did anyone say pthreads was part of the C standards? 2) As I said, "C does not have a standard threading library" is not the reason why there's no C fannkuch-redux program that uses multi core.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      C does not have a standard threading library. Pthreads is a threading library for C that happens to be standardized. The difference between these two statements, while perhaps subtle, is quite massive.