visualization of language benchmarks

"Jérôme M. Berger" jeberger at free.fr
Mon Jun 1 02:37:29 PDT 2009


Robert Fraser wrote:
> Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> "Denis Koroskin" <2korden at gmail.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:op.uuthxivwo7cclz at soldat.creatstudio.intranet...
>>>> On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 03:21:42 +0400, Tim Matthews 
>>>> <tim.matthews7 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Knud Soerensen wrote:
>>>>>> Tim Matthews wrote:
>>>>>>>> It's things like this that make me want to get into visualization.
>>>>>>>> Great article!
>>>>>>> Where's the D
>>>>>>  It is on 3,3 called Dlang.
>>>>>>
>>>>> OK it is was on the 05 chart but I was expecting it to be on the 
>>>>> updated
>>>>> 09 chart though. They seem to believe D is less of a player now.
>>>> IIRC, there was no stable 64bit D compiler for Linux at the moment 
>>>> they moved to new hardware and thus D support was dropped.
>>>
>>> So they're benchmarks are only accurate for 64-bit?
>>     The shootout have 32-bit and 64-bit versions of the benchmarks, 
>> but they wanted to have the same benchmarks on both architectures. I 
>> don't know which version was used to generate the charts though.
>>
>>         Jerome
> 
> Well now that LDC supports 64-bit, could we convince them to put it back 
> in?

 From the FAQ: "Why don't you include language X?"
================================8<-----------------------------------
     Is the language implementation

         * Used? There are way too many dead languages and unused 
new languages - see The Language List and Computer Languages History
         * Interesting? Is there something significant and 
interesting about the language, and will that be revealed by these 
simple benchmark programs? (But look closely and you'll notice that 
we sometimes include languages just because we find them interesting.)

     If that wasn't discouraging enough: in too many cases we've 
been asked to include a language implementation, and been told that 
of course programs would be contributed, but once the language 
didn't seem to perform as-well-as hoped no more programs were 
contributed. We're interested in the whole range of performance - 
not just in the 5 programs which show a language implementation at 
it's best.

     We have no ambition to measure every Python implementation or 
every Haskell implementation or every C implementation - that's a 
chore for all you Python enthusiasts and Haskell enthusiasts and C 
enthusiasts, a chore which might be straightforward if you use our 
measurement scripts.

     We are unable to publish measurements for many commercial 
language implementations simply because their license conditions 
forbid it.

     We will accept and reject languages in a capricious and unfair 
fashion - so ask if we're interested before you start coding.
-------------------------------->8===================================
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64/faq.php#acceptable

	So we can always ask, but we have to be careful how we phrase it: 
somebody asked about LLVM and LDC on the forums and the discussion 
centred around LLVM as a C compiler: 
https://alioth.debian.org/forum/forum.php?thread_id=14508&forum_id=999&group_id=30402

	Moreover, we have to be prepared to argue that D is used (should be 
easy: just point at the number of projects on dsource) and 
"interesting". The second is a lot more difficult because the 
definition of "interesting" is subjective:
================================8<-----------------------------------
Yes, there are just too many languages.

Interesting means more like unusual -

http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/ats.php
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=lisaac&lang2=gpp&box=1
-------------------------------->8===================================
https://alioth.debian.org/forum/message.php?msg_id=181473&group_id=30402

		Jerome
-- 
mailto:jeberger at free.fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeberger at jabber.fr

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20090601/483f3fa3/attachment.pgp>


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list