Linked by Christopher W. Cowell-Shah on Thu 8th Jan 2004 19:33 UTC
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/15/13 23:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Very interesting results. Sadly the sorting criteria (using the total instead of a geometric average) is unusual, and favors the languages that optimize the slow operations. The results of double math and trig show some big variations between languages (3:1 for double, more than 15:1 for trig) but this is not properly reflected in the results (in my humble opinion).
Here are the numbers with the geometric average. Notice how Java 1.3.1 suddenly appears much slower than Visual J# or Java 1.4.2, and Python/Psyco is far ahead of Python (the arithmetic average doesn't show the improvement on the trig test).
Visual C++: 8.4
Visual C#: 11.1
gcc C: 13.2
Visual Basic: 13.9
Visual J#: 14.2
Java 1.4.2: 14.8
Java 1.3.1: 18.6
Python/Psyco: 47.9
Python: 145.5
Ignoring Python for the moment, it's interesting to see that Java 1.3.1 is the only one that is far off the lead on most tests. gcc only need to improve on trig and long math, Visual C#/Basic/J# all have issues with long math and double math, with Visual Basic and J# suffering from slow I/O.
Java 1.4.2 has a very obvious and sever issue with trig. If that test was as fast as 1.3.1, Java 1.4.2 would score 12.2, very close to the lead. If it could be made to score 4.2 like Visual J#, that score would fall to 8.7, barely slower than Visual C++.
The differences between the various MSIL/CLR languages is also very interesting. It's obvious that VC++ manages to issue better 64-bit code than the rest of the pack, and that I/O is the only differentiator between Visual C#, Basic and J#.