Sat, 26 Dec 2009 20:27:43 +0000, Isaac Gouy wrote: > Thu, 17 Dec 2009 retard wrote > >> My point was that the language shootout has a lot more publicity than >> some 3rd party mini benchmark site. Almost everyone knows the site. > > That isn't accidental. > > Put the effort into making an interesting D benchmark site and making it > well known.
I don't like benchmarks that advertise a single language. I think yours is just fine, but it could support the PL diversity a bit more. I know adding more language support and more testable features requires extra effort, but IMHO the test has become less and less useful now that all interesting languages suddenly disappeared. Another thing, probably all JVM language implementations benefit from - server switch or "steady state". But you only list those results for Java. There's also gcj which produces native Java(/jvm language) executables. GCC 4.3 is used although 4.4 is available. It seems I'm using 4.4.2 and have been using 4.4 for a long while - I even compile my kernel with it despite all warnings. It would be interesting to know how much faster the new one is. And how much faster the development version of 4.5 is. Same thing with Java 7 / jvm languages - the early access version is already out and has much better support for scalar replacement and other optimizations than the currently tested version. I made a small test run and Java 7 executed one of the tests in 50% less time compared to Java 6.