OpenEuphoria

Re: Comparison of Euphoria vs Perl, Python, PHP

• Posted by Jeremy Cowgar <jeremy at c??gar.com> Jun 11, 2008
• 842 views

Well, I did not do as you suggested because I am too lazy to write new
benchmarks. Although, I did just randomly pick one from the computer language
shootout, nsieve:

http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=nsieve&lang=all

Here are the scores all on my PC (you cannot compare directly to the scores
listed on the website due to different hardware). I downloaded the fastest of
each language and then ran the benchmarks. Note, this was done using the unix
"time" command, thus startup, parse time, execution and shutdown times are all
measured:

C (-O3)           0.464s
Mono              0.527s
Java              0.543s
Euphoria (4.x)    1.303s (Translated)
Euphoria (3.1.1)  1.306s (Translated)
Euphoria (4.x)    1.809s
Euphoria (3.1.1)  2.135s
Python:           4.816s
Lua:              7.204s
Perl:            15.897s
Ruby:            39.730s

You cannot take these times directly, but you can take the rankings. For
instance, we are better than Python, therefore you can look on the list and see
we are better than: Lua, Pike, PHP, Groovy, Perl, JRuby, etc... You can see we
are not as good as Java, so above the list things like OCaml, bigForth, Fortran
are better than us.

Take notice, though, that 4.0 is faster than 3.1.1. I have shown this many times
but want to keep bringing attention to it to calm peoples fears that what we have
added has caused Euphoria to be slow.

--
Jeremy Cowgar
http://jeremy.cowgar.com