4 ms·
Scheme benchmarking with a meta-circular interpreter
- stefantalpalaru 13y agoThis benchmark is missing Chicken Scheme: http://www.call-cc.org/ http://www.call-cc.org/
- vanderZwan 13y ago> As we know, in comparison to compilers, interpreters have “interpretive overhead” when they execute programs. What if you run the interpreter itself inside a copy of itself? The overhead roughly multiplies. Wouldn't benchmarking this factor be more interesting than just benchmarking multiple compilers for a a fixed n levels of interpretation-recursion?
- gus_massa 13y agoI’d like to see a table, with the different compilers and the different levels of interpretations: 0 interpretations, 1 interpretations, ..., 5 interpretations
- dschiptsov 13y agoNo Gambit-C? That's why Racket is a winner.) There is also Bigloo and MIT Scheme (which is able to produce native code).
- agentultra 13y agoFaster than Clozure Common Lisp? That just itches my skeptic button.
- adwf 13y agoDunno about Clozure, but I just ran it in SBCL (had it open anyway), it took 11.256 seconds (5.17s of GC) on my old Intel Q6600 (7 years old now). Makes it seem that there might be something strange about the Clozure benchmark, although I generally think of SBCL as one of the faster Lisps.
- BMarkmann 13y agoI wonder how much of Racket's improvement over time really has to do with underlying changed to GNU Lightening (the library that underpins its JITing). Also, the interpreter and benchmarks look like they inherently single-threaded, so even though the server hardware looks beefy compared to the MacBook, it's really only using one of thoses (probably slower) cores. There are Scheme and CL implementations that make it easier to write code that parallelizes easier than is possible in Racket -- so anything beyond simple apples-to-apples code like this benchmark would show very different results.