retard Wrote: > 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.
No, other JVM based implementations are run with -server. > There's also gcj which produces native Java(/jvm language) > executables. There's always another and another and another language implementation. > GCC 4.3 is used although 4.4 is available. No, 4.4 is used for the x86 Ubuntu measurements. > 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. It seems like you want measurements for bleeding edge versions and a bunch of languages that are interesting to you - but you can't be bothered making those measurements yourself. Oh well.