[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: pidigits benchmark
- From: "Mark Meijer" <meijer78@...>
- Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:42:51 +0200
Indeed, what is the point of benchmarking a scripting engine using
algorithms implemented in "native" libraries.
Seems kinda silly to me.
2008/8/18 Mike Pall <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> Matthew Wild wrote:
>> Out of curiosity, does anyone have a technical explanation to offer
>> for why Lua performs up to 30x worse than Python and Perl in the
>> pidigits benchmark?
> This benchmark is almost meaningless for comparing languages
> because it spends most of the time in GMP (for those programs that
> use it, i.e. almost all of them).
> One of the Lua programs does all the arithmetic in Lua itself.
> Obviously it's hard to beat GMP which is written in hand-optimized
> assembler. The other Lua program uses a rather naive GMP binding.
> I'm sure if all languages were to implement the multi-precision
> arithmetic natively then Lua would be quite competitive.
> Linker wrote:
>> I think that is because of it used a dynamically compiled chunk.
>> The loadstring() function is not a fast funtion.
> Wrong. The factory function is only used a total of 4 times.