All Projects → unixpickle → Benchmarks

unixpickle / Benchmarks

Some language performance comparisons.

Programming Languages

rust
11053 projects

Benchmarks

These are some simple language benchmarks I am running on the following programming languages:

  • C/C++ - Apple LLVM version 5.0 (clang-500.2.79)
  • Dart VM version: 1.8.5 (Tue Jan 13 13:04:11 2015) on "macos_ia32"
  • Java - java version "1.7.0_71"
  • JavaScript - v8 (under node v0.10.29)
  • Python - both 3.3.0 and 2.7.5
  • Ruby - ruby 2.0.0p451 (2014-02-24 revision 45167)
  • Swift - Xcode Version 6.1.1 (6A2008a)
  • PHP - PHP 5.6.5 (cli)
  • Go - go version go1.4 darwin/amd64
  • C# - Mono JIT compiler version 3.12.0 + Mono C# compiler version 3.12.0.0
  • Rust - rustc 1.18.0-nightly (c58c928e6 2017-04-11)

These benchmarks compare performance characteristics of 10 different programming languages. Each benchmark includes a nearly identical implementation of the same program in each language. The pre-calculated statistics found in this repository were all collected on the same machine with a 2.6GHz Intel Core i7 with 1600 MHz DDR3 RAM. The first set of benchmarks were run under Mac OS X 10.9.3; the second were run under Mac OS X 10.10 (14A389).

Results

Here is a recap of each of the three benchmarks I have done so far. You should really, really read the benchmark-specific README if you notice anything unusual.

Force field benchmark

Language Time (s)
C++ (-O2) 1.892
C++ (-O3) 1.895
Rust 2.105
Java 2.469
Go 3.581
C++ (-O1) 5.290
Dart 5.844
Swift 7.675
C++ (-O0) 7.773
C# (-O=all) 10.639
C# (normal) 10.712
JavaScript 16.159
Ruby 300.4
PHP 557.2
Python 2 717.2
Python 3 880.7

Array reverse benchmark

Language Time (s)
Java 3.776
C (-O3) 4.273
C (-O2) 4.367
C (-O1) 4.395
Rust 5.698
Go 7.825
C# (-O=all) 8.378
Dart 8.988
JavaScript 13.162
C# (normal) 14.071
C (-O0) 17.034
Swift 25.658
Ruby 1439
Python 3 1466
Python 2 1485

PHP is not listed in this table because it runs the array-reverse benchmark in O(n^2) complexity rather than O(n) complexity and is thus "infinitely" slower.

Rolling average benchmark

Language Time (s)
C (-O1) 0.005
C (-O2) 0.005
C (-O3) 0.005
Rust 0.007
Swift 0.008
Java 0.463
Go 0.603
C# (normal) 0.621
C# (-O=all) 0.681
Dart 1.057
JavaScript 1.312
C (-O0) 2.763
Ruby 31.582
PHP 40.925
Python 2 71.550
Python 3 81.143

In the rolling average README, you will see an explanation of why C and Swift are so much faster than the rest

Fairness

I tried very hard to make every implementation of each test close in structure. With that being said, some languages have features others don't, and I could have missed a feature along the way. If this is the case, go ahead and make a pull request or file an issue and explain why I tested a certain language unfairly.

None of these tests are the "best way" to do what they do. Instead, the tests are designed to be inefficient in order to get a significant result from various optimizers.

Areas to Compare

Loops

Some looping mechanisms are better than others. For instance, creating an array with 10000 consecutive integers and then iterating over them is not an efficient way to loop. But don't worry, in Python 2 I avoid using range() for large loops in favor of xrange().

Function calls

Function calls have overhead. In C with optimizations, this overhead is pretty low and sometimes even non-existant (with inlining). However, in other languages like Python and Ruby, function calls may be rather expensive.

Arithmetic

Arithmetic operations are (mostly) single CPU instructions. It is up to various languages to leverage this to perform to the best of the CPU's ability.

Memory access

Accessing elements in arrays and updating variables should both be speedy operations.

Object creation

Allocating memory through object construction should be very fast. In a langauge like C++, it is sometimes possible to avoid dynamic memory allocation altogether in favor of stack allocation. On the other hand, a langauge like Java forces you to create objects using the new operator.

Note that the project description data, including the texts, logos, images, and/or trademarks, for each open source project belongs to its rightful owner. If you wish to add or remove any projects, please contact us at [email protected].