I apologize if this question has already been asked, but I couldn't find a searchable version of the mail archive. Doug Bagley's computer language shootout, http://www.bagley.org/~doug/shootout/, a collection of mini-benchmarks in several languages, doesn't paint a very flattering picture of GHC's performance. GHC is even ranked below Ruby and Python! Has anyone tried to optimize any of the GHC programs? Ocaml fares quite well in these tests and a glance at several of the Ocaml programs suggests that most of them have been fairly aggressively optimized. These kinds of benchmarks are kind of silly, but also a good p.r. opportunity. -- miles "We in the past evade X, where X is something which we believe to be a lion, through the act of running." - swiftrain@geocities.com
[Miles Egan <miles@caddr.com>]
I apologize if this question has already been asked, but I couldn't find a searchable version of the mail archive.
Doug Bagley's computer language shootout, http://www.bagley.org/~doug/shootout/, a collection of mini-benchmarks in several languages, doesn't paint a very flattering picture of GHC's performance. GHC is even ranked below Ruby and Python! Has anyone tried to optimize any of the GHC programs?
Ocaml fares quite well in these tests and a glance at several of the Ocaml programs suggests that most of them have been fairly aggressively optimized. These kinds of benchmarks are kind of silly, but also a good p.r. opportunity.
which benchmark were you looking at in particular? as far as i know, there is no sort of "overall conclusion" on that particular site... and on many of the benchmarks, ghc performed quite competitively (in some cases even beating the pants off g++)... of course, on some tests it didn't do so well, and several of the tests didn't apply at all (e.g., object instantiation). i'm particularly interested in the statement that ghc ranked below ruby. on most of the benchmarks i just looked at, ruby was very near or at the bottom of the list, with tcl and php... what exact information from that site are you looking at? maybe i missed something? matt -- matt hellige matt@immute.net http://matt.immute.net
On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 11:18:49AM -0500, matt hellige wrote:
[Miles Egan <miles@caddr.com>]
I apologize if this question has already been asked, but I couldn't find a searchable version of the mail archive.
Doug Bagley's computer language shootout, http://www.bagley.org/~doug/shootout/, a collection of mini-benchmarks in several languages, doesn't paint a very flattering picture of GHC's performance. GHC is even ranked below Ruby and Python! Has anyone tried to optimize any of the GHC programs?
Ocaml fares quite well in these tests and a glance at several of the Ocaml programs suggests that most of them have been fairly aggressively optimized. These kinds of benchmarks are kind of silly, but also a good p.r. opportunity.
which benchmark were you looking at in particular? as far as i know, there is no sort of "overall conclusion" on that particular site... and on many of the benchmarks, ghc performed quite competitively (in some cases even beating the pants off g++)...
Overall speed ratings on the "scorecard" page place GHC below AWK and slightly ahead of TCL. GHC does perform well on a few of the benchmarks but performs surprisingly poorly on many others, which makes me think that there's a lot of room for improvement. -- miles "We in the past evade X, where X is something which we believe to be a lion, through the act of running." - swiftrain@geocities.com
[Miles Egan <miles@caddr.com>]
Overall speed ratings on the "scorecard" page place GHC below AWK and slightly ahead of TCL. GHC does perform well on a few of the benchmarks but performs surprisingly poorly on many others, which makes me think that there's a lot of room for improvement.
aha! i missed the scorecard... i noticed that if you set the weights to 0 on each of the five tests that ghc did not compete in (hashes part 2, method calls, object instantiation, regular expressions, and string concatenation), ghc moves up some in the standings, but it's still not fabulous. m -- matt hellige matt@immute.net http://matt.immute.net
participants (2)
-
matt hellige -
Miles Egan