True, but FWIW that site is somewhat admirable for at least trying to cut implementation out & focus on language. For example, see the documentation for the bi

True, but FWIW that site is somewhat admirable for at least trying to cut implementation out & focus on language. For example, see the documentation for the binary-trees test: http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/performance.php?test=binarytrees http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/performance.php... There are a bunch of notes trying to make it very explicit that this test is supposed to isolate the garbage collector's performance. So they discourage lazy evaluation on the grounds that it might not produce the kind of allocation pattern the test is supposed to generate, and there's that bold admonition against memory management hacks, and all of that. I'm sure there's still plenty room for gaming the system, but looking at the actual C# & Java implementations for the test reveal that by-and-large they really are roughly equivalent. In particular, the C# doesn't resort to any obvious dirty trick like declaring the tree node datatype as a struct rather than a class. The upshot being, what that particularly test suggests is something that probably shouldn't come as much surprise: Mono's gc, while good, isn't quite as performant as HotSpot's.