On Mar 13, 10:28 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Thanks for the reply. To be a little more specific, we have internally > tens of thousands of Perl modules. Before running them in production: > we profile these modules, pass them through a circular reference > detector (code that intercepts all allocations, and at certain > intervals walks over Perl's SVs, AVs, HVs), and try to do static > analysis on them for security purposes (this doesn't work well with > Perl unfortunately, due to dynamic typing). > > In our setting, there isn't a single module that takes up 3 or 5% of > CPU. Since we profile code on a regular basis, these offenders are > easy to catch and fix. The problem is, we have more and more modules > written every day, each taking, say, %0.01 of CPU time, but they add > up to quite a lot. We also have a lot of code running in the same > environment in C++ (they talk over XS), and recently a friend > forwarded the following benchmarks: > > http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/debian/benchmark.php?test=nbody&lan... > (one sample > test)http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/debian/benchmark.php?test=all<=... > > Everylanguagehas its merits, and I know you can never do an apples > to apples comparison. However, if we can get more performance out of > Perl's VM, well, that would be great. In short, I just wondered if > Perl/Parrot were on the benchmarks, around where it would be. > > Thanks, > > Ozgun.
PIR is on the debian computer language shootout, see http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/sandbox/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=parrot Also see the gentoo computer language shootout, http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/
