+1 -- Andy, thanks.
On Friday, September 7, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Stuart Sierra wrote:
> Just wanted to say thanks for putting in all the work on the shootout
> programs, Andy.
>
> On Friday, September 7, 2012 1:12:44 AM UTC-7, Andy Fingerhut wrote:
> > All Clojure programs within 4x the run time
Just wanted to say thanks for putting in all the work on the shootout
programs, Andy.
On Friday, September 7, 2012 1:12:44 AM UTC-7, Andy Fingerhut wrote:
> All Clojure programs within 4x the run time of the
> corresponding Java programs, averaging around 2.5x the run
> time of Java.
That's pret
On Friday, September 7, 2012 1:12:44 AM UTC-7, Andy Fingerhut wrote:
>
> Since my last message, I personally have only submitted a new faster
> Clojure program for the knucleotide problem on the Benchmarks Game site. I
> haven't checked whether other Clojure programs have been submitted in tha
Since my last message, I personally have only submitted a new faster Clojure
program for the knucleotide problem on the Benchmarks Game site. I haven't
checked whether other Clojure programs have been submitted in that time.
For all of the benchmark machines below, I'd say don't worry about the
Thanks Andy for the insightful report! I knew you and others have worked
hard on the benchmarks so this kind of analysis is very helpful.
Thanks for all your work on them,
Ben
On 8/28/12 12:07 AM, Andy Fingerhut wrote:
I've written several of the Clojure programs on the site. I'm not
omniscie
Yes. Look at test.benchmark. Java is the baseline there. We don't accept
Clojure versions that are not competitive.
On Monday, August 27, 2012, Ben Mabey wrote:
> Looking at clojure's benchmarks they seem to already be highly optimized
> (in terms of employing all the standard tricks). Does any
I've written several of the Clojure programs on the site. I'm not omniscient
when it comes to writing efficient Clojure code, but I know a few of the
techniques. Several, if not most, of the Clojure solutions already take
advantage of mutable data structures, for example.
There are some faste
Looking at clojure's benchmarks they seem to already be highly optimized
(in terms of employing all the standard tricks). Does anyone have any
idea if more could be done to lessen the gap between java and
clojure[1]? Or are these benchmarks representative of the performance
gap between clojur
Maybe my impressions are out of date. Personally, I have neither the time
nor the interest, but optimizers do your stuff!
-S
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that post
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 3:07 PM, David Nolen wrote:
> I haven't found this to be the case. Java fares pretty well on Alioth.
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/help.php#java
Shows that it does not change much on programs that run for mor than a
few seconds.
--
You received this message because
I haven't found this to be the case. Java fares pretty well on Alioth.
On Saturday, August 25, 2012, Stuart Sierra wrote:
> The Alioth benchmarks are somewhat unfair to JVM languages because they
> include startup time for the JVM itself and often don't run enough
> iterations to engage the optim
The Alioth benchmarks are somewhat unfair to JVM languages because they
include startup time for the JVM itself and often don't run enough
iterations to engage the optimizer.
-S
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Raymond de Lacaze
>
> wrote:
> > Here’s a performance benchmark comparison of SBCL
Hello Ray,
Just a factor of 3 slower is pretty good :-)
The increased memory use is more disturbing to me since I often use
Clojure+Noir for deploying small web services and web apps. The extra
memory is more of a hassle than slightly slower execution speed.
Best regards,
Mark
On Sat, Aug 25,
13 matches
Mail list logo
