On Sunday 07 December 2008 07:11, Peter Wolf wrote: > I'm a n00b, but isn't the point of this language to be *faster* than > Java?... at least on a multiprocessor machine.
I don't think performance is a particular criterion for the design of this language. It's not unimportant, but the quality of the code it engenders, especially w.r.t. to concurrency and the difficulty of writing correct code using conventional thread-aware mechanisms, _is_ a key design goal. > Shouldn't the number of processors on the test machine make a big > difference to how fast it runs? Whereas, the Java version is only > dependent on the clock rate of the individual processors. Only for algorithms that are both parallelizable and which have actually been written in parallel form. There is not yet (and may never be) any ability to automatically parallelize arbitrary algorithms or code. > What happens if we run this benchmark on a nice 4 core core machine? And nothing else is running? One core will be used for the thread running this code. Another will do any I/O, though in this case there is virtually none, and another will do GC. This test is a sequential algorithm. I'm not familiar with the Alioth benchmarks / shootout, but maybe there are some parallel tests in there. Randall Schulz --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
