Like this:
[ | sum | sum:= 0. 1 to: 1e9 do: [ :i | sum := sum + i ]. sum ] timeToRun.
"0:00:00:39.305"
cat bench.c
#include <stdio.h>
#include <time.h>
int main() {
clock_t begin = clock();
int sum = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 1000000000; i++)
sum += i;
clock_t end = clock();
double time_spent = (double)(end - begin) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC;
printf("time_spent=%f\n", time_spent);
}
./a.out
time_spent=2.370234
That is C being 16 times faster ...
> On 17 Dec 2016, at 13:49, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> wrote:
>
> Hmm, this sounds wrong (C++ should be (a lot) faster on such micro
> benchmarks).
>
> You should exclude the executable startup time.
>
> In Pharo you should do [ .. ] timeToRun and something similar in C/C++.
>
>> On 17 Dec 2016, at 13:41, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> in multiplication pharo is around 2 times slower compared to C++
>>
>> #include <stdio.h>
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>> double x=1;
>> for(double i; i<1000000000 ; ++i)
>> {
>> x = 0.1*i;
>> }
>>
>> return 1;
>> }
>>
>> time ./testMul
>> 3.13 real 3.13 user 0.00 sys
>>
>> time ./pharo Ephestos.image eval "|x| x := 1. 1 to: 1000000000 do:[:each| x
>> := 0.1 * each]"
>> 1
>> 4.97 real 4.48 user 0.09 sys
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 2:16 PM Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.al...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> So I was bored and decided to test how fast pharo is compared to C++.
>>
>> so I tested addition
>>
>> C++ version:
>>
>> #include <stdio.h>
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>> double x=0;
>> while(x<1000000000)
>> {
>> x = x+1;
>> }
>>
>> return 1;
>> }
>>
>> time ./test1
>> 2.84 real 2.84 user 0.00 sys
>>
>> Pharo version:
>>
>> time ./pharo Ephestos.image eval "|x| x := 0. 1 to: 1000000000 do:[:each| x
>> := x +1]"
>> 1
>> 2.09 real 1.94 user 0.08 sys
>>
>> Pharo is +50% faster than C++ ... o_O ... that's suprising, I assume here
>> Pharo VM probably does some kind of optimisation.
>>
>
