[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: [ANN] LuaJIT-2.0.0-beta1
- From: Mike Pall <mikelu-0911@...>
- Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 19:01:55 +0100
David Given wrote:
> I assume what you're using here are hand-translated versions of the
> SciMark benchmarks to each of the various languages? Is it:
> ...? What about the C version? I'd be interested to run it through Clue
> and see what happens.
> Incidentally, I have tried to compare LuaJIT 2 with V8, but V8 doesn't
> seem to want to build easily these days. Last time I tried it I recall
> that it wasn't particularly fast compared to LuaJIT 1 anyway!
Looks like V8 is only faster on the only recursive and allocation-
heavy benchmark in there. And it's much slower on all others.
Even LJ1 was often faster than V8.
Also check the ranking here:
1.62 Java steady state
2.32 ==> LuaJIT <==
2.56 C# Mono
30.18 Ruby JRuby
Ok, kicking Fortran will be easy. Next victim: Java.
> Anyway, it's very good to see this out, and it's impressively fast. It'd
> be very interesting to try doing traditionally high-CPU tasks with
> LuaJIT 2 and to see how well it works;
I need to add auto-vectorization for that. Other than that, it's
already a killer: someone just sent me a private mail where it
outperformed Java on heavily numerical code (real use case, not a
> I work in the mobile phone
> industry and it is *frightening* how shoddy the code tends to be. It'd
> be really nice to move away from traditional languages like C and C++
> and towards scripting languages like Lua.
> Now I just have to wait for an ARM version...
Well, waiting is not a good tactic.
Collect requirements (desired number type, target architectures,
VFP or not etc.), collect funding, gather people who'd like to
work on it. In short: let me not drown in administrative stuff.
I'm more efficient at designing/coding.
[Sorry for the rant, please don't take it personally.]