Nice chart. Let's get real work done now. On Nov 7, 2012, at 1:40 PM, Ray Racine wrote:
> Personally I'm am far less interested in ball-park performance positioning > between Racket and some Scheme. Nice as they all are, and I've personally > spent time with all of them. Larceny, our summer fling was special. I'll > never forget you. > > Let's talk Heavy Weight Division here: Racket - Haskell - Scala - Clojure > > http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64/which-programs-are-fastest.php?calc=chart&sbcl=on&ghc=on&ocaml=on&clojure=on&racket=on&yarv=on&python3=on > > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > At Tue, 6 Nov 2012 07:29:13 -0500, Marc Feeley wrote: > > > > Le 2012-11-06 à 3:50 AM, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> a écrit : > > > > > I am very impressed that Racket is as fast as it is. I had expected the > > compilers such as Gambit to be much faster than the VM-JIT system. If Racket > > had a 64-bit x86 assembler available, I might even consider using it > > instead of > > Gambit. > > > > > > It's impressive to note the change in relative performance for Racket > > > over past 3 years since you published the benchmarks on the blog -- > > > Racket has gone from slower than Gambit on the majority of benchmarks, > > > sometimes by a significant margin, to faster on most of them, and > > > never more than 2x slower (except ctak). > > > > For your information, it seems that the change in relative > > performance has more to do with the change in C compiler over the > > past 3 years than anything else. > > That does not appear to be the case. > > I've run the benchmarks on Linux, using both 32-bit and 64-bit builds > (more details below): > > * For 32-bit build, I get results much like the ones I posted earlier, > suggesting that for this benchmark suite, the choice of gcc versus > LLVM for Gambit doesn't matter that much. > > * For 64-bit builds (where I'm running 64-bit Gambit for the first > time), the results are similar to what Brad reported for similar > benchmarks. > > I've also run the old benchmarks on MzScheme v4.2.4 and Racket > v5.3.1.5. The results show that Racket has become mostly faster on > these benchmarks over the last three years. > > My goal is not to characterize any implementation as X% better than > another, and we all know the limits of benchmarks. Still, if anyone is > surprised by Racket's performance on these benchmarks, then I would > like to be as clear as possible: Racket's performance is competitive, > and it continues to improve. > > ---------------------------------------- > > Machine: > Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz > Linux 3.0.0-21-generic #35-Ubuntu SMP > Fri May 25 17:57:41 UTC 2012 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux > > GCC: > gcc version 4.6.1 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.1-9ubuntu3) > > Gambit: > v4.6.6, built from source, configured with `--enable-single-host' > > Racket: > v5.3.1.5 built from source, default configuration > > MzScheme: > v4.2.2 built from source, default configuration > > Benchmarks: > For Racket and Gambit: > At https://github.com/plt/racket > in collects/tests/racket/benchmarks/common > commit 891932074c > For Racket and MzScheme: > Benchmarks included in PLT Scheme v4.2.4 > > Results enclosed: > rg64.html --- Racket and Gambit, 64-bit mode > rg32.html --- Racket and Gambit, 32-bit mode > rm64.html --- Racket and MzScheme, 64-bit mode > rm32.html --- Racket and MzScheme, 32-bit mode > where times are averages over three runs > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
