On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Bill Baxter <wbax...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:11 PM, bearophile <bearophileh...@lycos.com> wrote: >> Bill Baxter: >>> Do you have any citations of that? All I can find on LuaJIT.org is >>> comparisons of LuaJIT vs other versions of Lua. >> >> On my site you can see a version of the SciMark2 benchmark (that contains >> several sub-benchmarks, naive scientific kernels, mostly) for D with >> numerous timings. LDC is able to compile it quite well. >> >> You can find a version of that code here: >> http://luajit.org/download/scimark.lua >> I have compiled the awesome LUA JIT (it's easy) on Linux, and found timings >> against ldc, dmd. >> I have taken similar timings for another benchmark (nboby, from Shootout >> site). > > So LuaJIT beats D on some or all of those benchmarks? I can't quite > remember what your website URL is. > But I did find this: > http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=luajit&lang2=gpp > I was thinking LuaJIT would be too new and/or fringe for it to be on > the Alioth shootout, but it's there. > From that it looks like LuaJIT can't beat g++ for speed on any of the > benchmarks. You disagree with those results?
Nevermind. I realize you didn't say that LuaJIT was faster than g++, just faster than DMD. But that last part made it sound like you thought LuaJIT was on track to eventually outperform all compilers. As in the need for fast JIT is strong enough that eventually people will figure out how to make it faster than everything else out there. --bb
