Re: Why is Nim so slow in this
@machingan > If it's in Windows, antivirus is to blame. Oh! Do you think that anti-viruses don't check executable files created by other compilers? If so, then this is the conspiracy against Nim!
Re: Why is Nim so slow in this
Manually managed Nim is now the fastest!
Re: Why is Nim so slow in this
Nim is the fastest now with c target according to the updated table! The Nim javascript target is twice as slow as plain javascript for the fast version and 4x slower for the naive main.nim version.
Re: Why is Nim so slow in this
Nim can be consistently faster than C++ with raw pointers.
See:
* [{.noInit.}
PR](https://github.com/frol/completely-unscientific-benchmarks/pull/17)
requires devel unfortunately
* [Static compilation
discussion](https://github.com/frol/completely-unscientific-benchmarks/issues/43#issuecomment-389497614),
does not require devel
Re: Why is Nim so slow in this
@miran Ah, the impression I had from this thread was that the readme's instructions produced a slower executable.
Re: Why is Nim so slow in this
@cantanima: see the [readme](https://github.com/frol/completely-unscientific-benchmarks/tree/master/nim) for the instructions how to compile. On my machine, if I use `nim c -d:release main_fast.nim` I get 0.42 seconds, but if I use what it is recommended (`nim compile -d:release --passC:-flto --passL:-s --gc:markAndSweep --out:main-nim main_fast.nim`), it runs in 0.18 seconds.
Re: Why is Nim so slow in this
@jrenner > I just ran the c++ raw pointer and the main_fast example from nim on my linux > computer. I got 0.21 for the C++ raw pointer with g++, and 0.18 for the > main_fast nim example. What compiler settings did you use, and which version? I just tried it and while it's a lot faster than the first Nim version it still takes almost twice as much time as the Ada and C++ versions on my machine (.283 and .276 seconds, respectively, vs. .547 for main_fast.nim). I used nim c -d:release main_fast.nim with nim 0.18.0, as well as nim c -d:release --opt:speed main_fast.nim which doesn't seem to make much difference (except perhaps slow it down a little). This was on a MacBook Pro; haven't tried it on Linux yet.
Re: Why is Nim so slow in this
I just ran the c++ raw pointer and the main_fast example from nim on my linux computer. I got 0.21 for the C++ raw pointer with g++, and 0.18 for the main_fast nim example.
Re: Why is Nim so slow in this
Aside from the wrong compiler settings, there is also a performance regression compared to 0.17.2. The underlying reason appears to be that in 0.18, if you have a tuple result, `genericReset()` is called at the beginning of the procedure, which is pretty expensive.
Re: Why is Nim so slow in this "Completely Unscientific Benchmark"?
If it's in Windows, antivirus is to blame.
Re: Why is Nim so slow in this "Completely Unscientific Benchmark"?
Because according to this [https://github.com/frol/completely-unscientific-benchmarks/tree/master/nim](https://github.com/frol/completely-unscientific-benchmarks/tree/master/nim) compilation was done in `debug` mode. It needs to be `nim compile -d:release --opt:speed --out:main-nim main.nim`.
Why is Nim so slow in this "Completely Unscientific Benchmark"?
[https://github.com/frol/completely-unscientific-benchmarks](https://github.com/frol/completely-unscientific-benchmarks) Nim is ~18x slower than the fastest (C++) solution.
