computer language shootout
Fri, 27 Jul 2001 10:34:40 -0700
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Miles Egan [SMTP:email@example.com]
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 10:11:20AM -0700, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > I have to say (and this also relates to the newbie question thread) that
> > don't understand why GHC fares so poorly, and I guess I find it a little
> > frustrating.
> I think it's important to keep these benchmarks in perspective, though.
> As Doug
> Bagley himself says, these kinds of benchmarks are pretty hard to
> interpret and
> are subject to a lot of noise. Extrapolating performance on small
> problems like this to real application performance is not at all
> straightforward. That said, this is a small p.r. problem.
While this is absolutely true, and well worth remembering, GHC's
performance is in some cases reasonably competitive, but in others is many
times slower than Ocaml. For instance:
Times are C/Ocaml/GHC
Sum a Column of Integers: 0.73 / 0.99 / 9.98
Array Access: 0.11/ 0.14 / 18.78
But there are also entries like:
Ackermann's Function 0.09 / 0.04 / 0.06
Where Ocaml and GHC were both *faster* than C, and GHC was quite
close to Ocaml.
I'm just wondering why we can't get performance like (at least)
Ocaml on all the tests, not just some.