Java Vs. Euphoria (was Python Vs. Euphoria)
--0-1777895397-1136589330=:22038
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Thanks for the update aku, that is very interesting.
For those of you who are interested in Java's evolution (as I am), the next
version of the Java client (codenamed Mustang) actually shows a 60% performance
gain across the board for a bunch of the SciMark benchmarks that focus mostly on
loops, arrays and arithmetical expressions - the kind of stuff you really want
speed for (quoted performance is in comparison with the current JVM). For some
of the major benchmarks like FFT, it was actually 3X faster. This perfomance
gain is the result of a bugfix that allows the Java VM to use CPU registers more
effectively and it has been suggested that further optimizations being
considered for Mustang may add even greater performance improvements.
I am mostly writing science/math applications so this is really great news
for me. I already find that for most of my own applications (real world stuff,
not just benchmarks), there is no significant difference between using C++ and
Java so Java's "lack of performance" issues that might dissuade me to use the
much uglier C++, are basically no longer an issue at all. Java also seems to be
faster than .NET pretty much across the board.
In addition to all this, thanks to its vibrant user/developer community, Java
shows a quantum leap in performance, features and stability almost every year.
By contrast, C++ does not seem to have the evolutionary momentum to keep up and
I am pretty sure that Java will continue to move ahead of it. Last year, for the
first time ever, Java displaced C++ as the major language for developers on
Sourceforge.
BTW: In case you were wondering, I don't work for Sun or any of its
affiliates, or even hold any of their stock. I just like Java. I like Euphoria
as well, but I fear that its development by a single (albeit highly talented)
individual will prevent it from ever being more than a curiousity for a small
niche of porgrammers.
Best
Gordon
gb> I would be very interested to see how Java compares to Euphoria in
benchmarks.
gb> I cannot believe how much faster Java has gotten in the
gb> last few years. The difference between Java and C++ really isn't
gb> that significant now and Java even beats C++ for raw speed on a
gb> subset of the benchmarks. Java is already faster than the .NET
gb> platform on nearly all benchmarks.
I'm also interested in this, so I made one. The java source is made as
similar to the Euphoria's sieve.ex (still uses 0 and 1 instead of
false and true, still uses 1-based arrays instead of 0, etc).
And the results are:
> d:\prog\eu-2.5\bin\exwc c:\euphoria\demo\bench\sieve.ex
prime sieve benchmark ...
30816.7 sieves per second
...
> java EuSieve
prime sieve benchmark ...
96133.3 sieves per second
...
Java 1.5 is 3x faster than Eu 2.5!
And after that I realized that Eu 2.5 includes a different sieve.ex,
so I made another one.
> d:\prog\eu-2.5\bin\exwc d:\prog\eu-2.5\demo\bench\sieve8k.exw 90000
Prime Sieve Benchmark
Count: 1028
time: 35.32
> java EuSieve2 90000
Prime Sieve Benchmark
Count: 1028
time: 13.75
Java is still 3x faster...
For your reference I attached the java files, with original Eu program
as comments.
BTW, both Java and Eu 2.5 uses bytecodes while running the program,
why do you think Eu is so much slower?
--0-1777895397-1136589330=:22038
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<div id="RTEContent">Thanks for the update aku, that is very interesting.<br>
<br> For those of you who are interested in Java's evolution (as I am), the
next version of the Java client (codenamed Mustang) actually shows a 60%
performance gain across the board for a bunch of the SciMark benchmarks that
focus mostly on loops, arrays and arithmetical expressions - the kind of stuff
you really want speed for (quoted performance is in comparison with the current
JVM). For some of the major benchmarks like FFT, it was actually 3X faster. This
perfomance gain is the result of a bugfix that allows the Java VM to use CPU
registers more effectively and it has been suggested that further optimizations
being considered for Mustang may add even greater performance improvements.<br>
<br> I am mostly writing science/math applications so this is really great news
for me. I already find that for most of my own applications (real world stuff,
not just benchmarks), there is no
significant difference between using C++ and Java so Java's "lack of
performance" issues that might dissuade me to use the much uglier C++, are
basically no longer an issue at all. Java also seems to be faster than .NET
pretty much across the board.<br> <br> In addition to all this, thanks to its
vibrant user/developer community, Java shows a quantum leap in performance,
features and stability almost every year. By contrast, C++ does not seem to have
the evolutionary momentum to keep up and I am pretty sure that Java will
continue to move ahead of it. Last year, for the first time ever, Java displaced
C++ as the major language for developers on Sourceforge.<br> <br> BTW: In case
you were wondering, I don't work for Sun or any of its affiliates, or even hold
any of their stock. I just like Java. I like Euphoria as well, but I fear that
its development by a single (albeit highly talented) individual will prevent it
from ever being more than a curiousity for a small
niche of porgrammers. <br> <br> Best<br> <br> Gordon<br><br><b><i>aku saya
<akusaya at gmx.net></i></b> wrote:<blockquote class="replbq"
style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left:
5px;"> ============ The Euphoria Mailing List ============ <br><br>gb> I
would be very interested to see how Java compares to Euphoria in benchmarks.<br>
<br>gb> I cannot believe how much faster Java has gotten in the<br>gb>
last few years. The difference between Java and C++ really isn't<br>gb> that
significant now and Java even beats C++ for raw speed on a<br>gb> subset of
the benchmarks. Java is already faster than the .NET<br>gb> platform on
nearly all benchmarks.<br><br>I'm also interested in this, so I made one. The
java source is made as<br>similar to the Euphoria's sieve.ex (still uses 0 and 1
instead of<br>false and true, still uses 1-based arrays instead of 0,
etc).<br><br>And the results are:<br><br>> d:\prog\eu-2.5\bin\exwc
c:\euphoria\demo\bench\sieve.ex<br>prime sieve benchmark ...<br>30816.7 sieves
per second<br>...<br><br>> java EuSieve<br>prime sieve benchmark
...<br>96133.3 sieves per second<br>...<br><br>Java 1.5 is 3x faster than Eu
2.5!<br><br>And after that I realized that Eu 2.5 includes a different
sieve.ex,<br>so I made another one.<br><br>> d:\prog\eu-2.5\bin\exwc
d:\prog\eu-2.5\demo\bench\sieve8k.exw 90000<br>Prime Sieve Benchmark<br>Count:
1028<br>time: 35.32<br><br>> java EuSieve2 90000<br>Prime Sieve
Benchmark<br>Count: 1028<br>time: 13.75<br><br>Java is still 3x
faster...<br><br>For your reference I attached the java files, with original Eu
program<br>as comments.<br><br>BTW, both Java and Eu 2.5 uses bytecodes while
running the program,<br>why do you think Eu is so much
slower?<br><br>--^----------------------------------------------------------------<br>This
email was sent to: gwalias-bb at yahoo.com<br><br>EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here:
http://topica.com/u/?b1dd66.b7HXOn.Z3dhbGlh<br>Or send an email to:
EUforum-unsubscribe at topica.com<br><br>For Topica's complete suite of email
marketing solutions
visit:<br>http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER<br>--^----------------------------------------------------------------<br></blockquote><br></div>
--0-1777895397-1136589330=:22038--
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
