2 ms·
I was interested in how this compares in a kind of absolute sense. For comparison, an optimized C hello world program gave these results using `perf` on my Dell
by antonvs 2y ago
I was interested in how this compares in a kind of absolute sense. For comparison, an optimized C hello world program gave these results using `perf` on my Dell XPS 13 laptop:
0.000636230 seconds time elapsed
0.000759000 seconds user
0.000000000 seconds sys
That's 36,800% faster. Hand-written assembly was very slightly slower. Using the standard library for output instead of a syscall brought it down to 20,900% faster.
(Yes I used percentages to underscore how big the difference is. It's 368x and 209x respectively. That's huge.)
Begrudgingly, here are the standard Python numbers:
real 0m0.019s
user 0m0.015s
sys 0m0.004s
About 1230% faster than the sandbox, i.e. 12.3x. About an order of magnitude, which is typical for these kinds of exercises.
- singularity2001 2y agohaha, 99% is startup time for the sandbox, but yeah, python via wasm is probably still 10-400 times slower than c.