Chris Vine <ch...@cvine.freeserve.co.uk> writes: > On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 21:00:54 +0100 > Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Thu 26 Jan 2017 09:39, Rchar <rc...@protonmail.com> writes: >> > https://ecraven.github.io/r7rs-benchmarks/benchmark.html >> > Is Guile slow or fast, comparing to others? >> >> Schemes that compile to native code go faster. Guile compiles to >> bytecode right now, so it's generally (though not always!) slower than >> the native-compiling schemes. But compared to the >> bytecode-interpreter schemes it's pretty fast. > > On reading this, out of interest I wrote a very simple program solving > primes, using the basic 'seive odd divisors to square root' algorithm. > I tested guile-2.0, guile-2.2, chicken and chez scheme on it. > > guile-2.0 was a little slower than chicken with chicken compiled to C, > but guile-2.2 on that test took about 75% of the time of chicken, and > about 50% of the time of guile-2.0. chez scheme was fastest of all, > taking about 50% of the time of chicken. OK, chicken may not be the > fastest of "compile to C" schemes.
Do I read this correctly that Chez took only about 30% less time than Guile 2.2? Could you try stalin, too? (Chez wins 28 comparisons, Stalin 14, so that would be an obvious target) Best wishes, Arne -- Unpolitisch sein heißt politisch sein ohne es zu merken
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature