4 ms·
This is a pretty eye opening chart. I know the Go guys have a philosophical point about wanting to be able to reason the whole source code as the justification
by InTheArena 12y ago
This is a pretty eye opening chart. I know the Go guys have a philosophical point about wanting to be able to reason the whole source code as the justification for the Plan 9 and later GCC only stance, but I do have to think that these numbers are poor enough that a LLVM port should be investigated.
I also think that it's a good think for Go that Apple hasn't open source'd swift. I suspect it would thrash Go here.
- beering 12y agoMaybe I come from a different world, but these numbers seem pretty good. If you compare C++ and Go, C++ is 3x-1x faster than Go using more code. For most applications that you'd expect to use Go for, that's decent efficiency at a smaller memory footprint than Java. Enough, certainly, to make a high-performance server that uses less RAM than Java and less code than C++.
- nulltype 12y agoGo seems to be heavily optimized for write-time efficiency instead of runtime efficiency.
- kristianp 12y agoThere is only one where Go is 3 times slower, regex-dna. That would either be because of the speed of the regex implementation or the GC for the allocations. Apart from that Go is similar or twice as fast for reverse-component. Note that Go uses less memory for tasks that require memory to be allocated too. Go is doing better at the benchmarks game than it has in the past.
- bad_user 12y agoI don't get it - is this because you think Java has poor performance? I for one suspect that Swift does not exceed Java in throughput either and in fact I'd bet that the performance of Swift is worse.