4 ms·

Fibonacci(50) Performance: Java C C++ D Go Terra (Lua) Lua-JIT (Lua)

• senthadev 12y ago
  You should try to implement the Fib with tail call and then test it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tail_call http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tail_call
  • dozzie 12y ago
    First he should implement it properly, remembering last two values at any time. His way is just plain outrageous.
    • rjoshi 12y ago
      Here the comparison is not about the algorithm, but language with similar recursion logic.
      • dozzie 12y ago
        Then he should have used appropriate function to calculate, Ackermann for instance.
• bjorg 12y ago
  I wonder if the author validated the results returned by Java for Fibonacci 50. Performance can increase significantly when correctness is not an issue. :)
  • rjoshi 12y ago
    Yes, if you look at the https://github.com/rohitjoshi/lang-compare/blob/master/fibonacci/results_fib_50.txt https://github.com/rohitjoshi/lang-compare/blob/master/fibon..., it print fibonacci (50) = 12586269025
• tasoeur 12y ago
  Does anyone know why Java would be faster here? Is there any kind of optimization happening under the hood? (Automatic memoization?)
  • deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  • rjoshi 12y ago
    See the updated blog again. It seems issue is with Clang/LLVM on MacOSX. I reran the test on Linux with Gnu g++ and it outperforms Java.
• igouy 12y ago
  Back in the day, when we didn't know any better... https://web.archive.org/web/20080729072224/http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=recursive&lang=all https://web.archive.org/web/20080729072224/http://shootout.a...