[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Lua and Neko comparison
- From: bertie <katsanqat@...>
- Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:55:28 +0200
On Thursday 28 September 2006 09:14, Nicolas Cannasse wrote:
> Some of the Shootout benchmarks scripts are available in the
> neko/src/benchs. In general, when meaningful computation is performed
> (i.e. not "hello world") then Neko tends to be one of the fastest
> dynamicly typed VM.
> > From looking at your Fibonacci code, for example, I suspect that what
> > it's actually measuring is how long it takes to allocate stack frames;
> > it's calling fib() a *lot of times*. This means that the results don't
> > necessarily mean anything in the real world.
Recursiveness test is also included in shootout.debian. It means a lot,
particulary to low-level programmers.
> But to be exactly fair, one should run Neko in interpreted mode (using
> neko -interp <script>).
I'm sorry that I couldn't manage to get that one working. He says:
Uncaught exception - load.c(167) : Module not found : hello.neko
> > (Incidentally, your bar charts look awfully strange --- how come the high
> > numbers have shorter bars than the low numbers?)
> I think it's 1/T ratio.
Slowest time being considered to be the best, it is given 100%. So let width
of bar image be 100.
The following equation determines the width of any value, knowing the min
which is the "best": val(f) = (f*rate) / (f/min)² where rate = 100/min
Thus produces 100 for the min. CQFD. This is how width of HTML image is
calculated after having sorted the values.