3 ms·

C# non SIMD (naive non optimized version) is in the same ballbark as other similar GC languages. Nim version is not some naive version also and seem rather spec

by mrsmrtss 10mo ago

C# non SIMD (naive non optimized version) is in the same ballbark as other similar GC languages. Nim version is not some naive version also and seem rather specially crafted so it can be vectorized and still looses to C# SIMD.

forgotpwd16 10mo ago
Loses? My comparison is regarding GP's metric perf/lines_of_code. Let m := perf/lines_of_code = 1/(t × lines_of_code) [highest is better], or to make comparison simpler*, m' := 1/m = t × lines_of_code [lowest is better]. Then**: Nim 1672 Julia 3012 D 3479 C# (SIMD) 5853 C# 8919 >Nim version is not some naive version It's direct translation of formula, using `mod` rather `x = -x`. *Rather comparing numbers << 1. **No blank/comment lines. As cloc and similar tools count.
- neonsunset 10mo ago
  Nim "cheats" in a similar way C and C++ submissions do: -fno-signed-zeros -fno-trapping-math Although arguably these flags are more reasonable than allowing the use of -march=native. Also consider the inherent advantage popular languages have: you don't need to break out to a completely niche language, while achieving high performance. Saying this, this microbenchmark is naive and does not showcase realistic bottlenecks applications would face like how well-optimized standard library and popular frameworks are, whether the compiler deals with complexity and abstractions well, whether there are issues with multi-threaded scaling, etc etc. You can tell this by performance of dynamically typed languages - since all data is defined in scope of a single function, the compiler needs to do very little work and can hide the true cost of using something like Lua (LuaJIT).
  - forgotpwd16 10mo ago
    Per the rules[0]: "Use idiomatic code for the language. Compiler optimizations flags are fine." Agree with the rest of your comment. [0]: https://github.com/niklas-heer/speed-comparison#rules https://github.com/niklas-heer/speed-comparison#rules
  - archargelod 10mo ago
    > Nim "cheats" in a similar way C and C++ submissions do: -fno-signed-zeros -fno-trapping-math I don't see these flags in Nim compilation config. The only extra option used is "-march=native"[0]. [0] https://github.com/niklas-heer/speed-comparison/blob/9681e8e3ab65af9ff8abd3f27db0f461bcbdd820/dagger-poc/languages.py#L229 https://github.com/niklas-heer/speed-comparison/blob/9681e8e...
    - neonsunset 10mo ago
      https://github.com/niklas-heer/speed-comparison/blob/9681e8e3ab65af9ff8abd3f27db0f461bcbdd820/Earthfile#L276 https://github.com/niklas-heer/speed-comparison/blob/9681e8e...

forgotpwd16 10mo ago

Loses? My comparison is regarding GP's metric perf/lines_of_code. Let m := perf/lines_of_code = 1/(t × lines_of_code) [highest is better], or to make comparison simpler*, m' := 1/m = t × lines_of_code [lowest is better]. Then**: Nim 1672 Julia 3012 D 3479 C# (SIMD) 5853 C# 8919 >Nim version is not some naive version It's direct translation of formula, using `mod` rather `x = -x`. *Rather comparing numbers << 1. **No blank/comment lines. As cloc and similar tools count.

neonsunset 10mo ago
Nim "cheats" in a similar way C and C++ submissions do: -fno-signed-zeros -fno-trapping-math Although arguably these flags are more reasonable than allowing the use of -march=native. Also consider the inherent advantage popular languages have: you don't need to break out to a completely niche language, while achieving high performance. Saying this, this microbenchmark is naive and does not showcase realistic bottlenecks applications would face like how well-optimized standard library and popular frameworks are, whether the compiler deals with complexity and abstractions well, whether there are issues with multi-threaded scaling, etc etc. You can tell this by performance of dynamically typed languages - since all data is defined in scope of a single function, the compiler needs to do very little work and can hide the true cost of using something like Lua (LuaJIT).
- forgotpwd16 10mo ago
  Per the rules[0]: "Use idiomatic code for the language. Compiler optimizations flags are fine." Agree with the rest of your comment. [0]: https://github.com/niklas-heer/speed-comparison#rules https://github.com/niklas-heer/speed-comparison#rules
- archargelod 10mo ago
  > Nim "cheats" in a similar way C and C++ submissions do: -fno-signed-zeros -fno-trapping-math I don't see these flags in Nim compilation config. The only extra option used is "-march=native"[0]. [0] https://github.com/niklas-heer/speed-comparison/blob/9681e8e3ab65af9ff8abd3f27db0f461bcbdd820/dagger-poc/languages.py#L229 https://github.com/niklas-heer/speed-comparison/blob/9681e8e...
  - neonsunset 10mo ago
    https://github.com/niklas-heer/speed-comparison/blob/9681e8e3ab65af9ff8abd3f27db0f461bcbdd820/Earthfile#L276 https://github.com/niklas-heer/speed-comparison/blob/9681e8e...