You are correct that the 2 versions I send out earlier are *very* different. I started from two places, the primes.pasm which I converted to C and perl versions and a pre-existing primes.py and primes.c that I converted to primes.pasm. My interest was in comparing parrot to other things, so I didn't pay any attention in trying to get comparable perl and parrot ones. Thanks for taking an interest.
-Tupshin
Jim Meyer wrote:
Hello!
Benchmarks are idiosyncratic and devious and I thank you for starting a
comparison whose results interest me greatly. =]
On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 10:03, Tupshin Harper wrote:
[...]and some are in languages I am less then fluent in (last touched any flavor of assembly in 1985, and barely touched it then), so be kind. I don't believe I'm being too unfair to any of the languages, though feel free to tell me otherwise.I looked at the .pl and .py versions and was struck by the very
dissimilar approaches taken in the two. I translated the GOTO-style
primes.pl to a loop syntax in both Perl and Python which I believe
accurately represents the logic of primes.pasm without resorting to
actual GOTO statements[1].
I'd be very curious as to the runtime of these on the system you used
for the earlier benchmarks. On my box, the retooled Python script takes
only approximately 50% of the time used by the earlier Perl version; the
retooled Perl version runs in roughly 30% the time of its Perl
predecessor.
Thanks again for taking this initiative!
--j
[1] "Go To Statement Considered Harmful", Edsger W. Dijkstra, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 11, No. 3, March 1968, pp. 147-148; see
http://www.acm.org/classics/oct95/
