4 ms·
> Out of curiosity, what's the difference in runtime when compared to Andrew's optimized version on your machine? Results on an M1: my "idiomatic" version is 1
by mustache_kimono 4y ago
> Out of curiosity, what's the difference in runtime when compared to Andrew's optimized version on your machine?
Results on an M1: my "idiomatic" version is 1.32 times faster than Andrew's original optimized version, whereas the optimized C version is 1.13 times faster than my "idiomatic" version. So, all things being equal, that'd make Rust 3rd, just ahead of C++, and behind Zig and C, if I'm reading the results correctly.
More important, to me, would be the other thing -- it's readable, idiomatic Rust. That is, if it had been 5% slower, I think we'd probably all prefer to maintain this code.
- burntsushi 4y agoCan you share precisely how you're running the code and measuring timings? I've seen folks flub the measuring for this benchmark by testing much smaller inputs, for example.
- mustache_kimono 4y agoI'm using the kjvbible_x10.txt corpus and using hyperfine on the Mac. I just took a look on Linux and my code that is now running 1.43x faster on the Mac is only 1.02x faster on Ubuntu 22.04. But, again, it's really that it's a Rust commercial -- by leaning on the stdlib, it's possible to get straightforward, but still really fast code. I have no doubt you could make it faster than me and have!