Performance comparison of Functional C++ 11, Java 8, JavaScript and Wolfram • Hacker News Board

Re: Performance comparison of Functional C++ 11, Java 8, JavaScript and Wolfram

#11

Post by alayne » Fri, Jun 06, 2014, 1:33 AM UTC

mtdewcmu wrote: post #8

zik wrote: post #2

It's pretty astonishing how easily C++ trounces everything else including Java. I guess there's still something to be said for compiling directly to optimised binaries.

Supposedly, Java is going to be faster than native code any day now. It's been said for years. The case was somewhat credible at one time, because the opportunity exists to optimize using runtime information. I think the reason it didn't go that way is: 1. CPUs have gotten very good at doing runtime optimization kinds of things on their own, like predicting branches and reducing the cost of virtual function calls. 2.…

Java's performance relative to other commonly used languages is very good. It's basically been at 2-3x slower than C/C++ for quite a while.

Re: Performance comparison of Functional C++ 11, Java 8, JavaScript and Wolfram

#12

Post by gcv » Fri, Jun 06, 2014, 1:34 AM UTC

zik wrote: post #2

It's pretty astonishing how easily C++ trounces everything else including Java. I guess there's still something to be said for compiling directly to optimised binaries.

Having dealt with trying to make Java run within some reasonable margin of C++11, I'm not surprised at these results at all. It's really hard to make Java go that fast.

I'm instead shocked that the C++ version beat Fortran.

Re: Performance comparison of Functional C++ 11, Java 8, JavaScript and Wolfram

#13

Post by xxs » Fri, Jun 06, 2014, 1:34 AM UTC

zik wrote: post #2

It's pretty astonishing how easily C++ trounces everything else including Java. I guess there's still something to be said for compiling directly to optimised binaries.

The main issue is that C version is hardly functional programming: stuff like array for forest and then counting instead of massive branching like java's isStable(); Reserving the entire next_forests like that:

  next_forests.reserve(forests.size() * possible_meals.size());

helps quite a lot compared to the small header-full instances Java features.

Re: Performance comparison of Functional C++ 11, Java 8, JavaScript and Wolfram

#14

Post by Shorel » Fri, Jun 06, 2014, 1:35 AM UTC

I would like to have DLang added to that benchmark.

Re: Performance comparison of Functional C++ 11, Java 8, JavaScript and Wolfram

#15

Post by humanrebar » Fri, Jun 06, 2014, 1:39 AM UTC

zik wrote: post #2

It's pretty astonishing how easily C++ trounces everything else including Java. I guess there's still something to be said for compiling directly to optimised binaries.

The Intel and GNU C++ compilers usually produce even faster code than the compiler used (Clang). Also, if it's business critical, you can do heavy calculations through GPUs or other custom hardware.

Re: Performance comparison of Functional C++ 11, Java 8, JavaScript and Wolfram

#16

Post by AnimalMuppet » Fri, Jun 06, 2014, 1:39 AM UTC

mtdewcmu wrote: post #8

zik wrote: post #2

It's pretty astonishing how easily C++ trounces everything else including Java. I guess there's still something to be said for compiling directly to optimised binaries.

Supposedly, Java is going to be faster than native code any day now. It's been said for years. The case was somewhat credible at one time, because the opportunity exists to optimize using runtime information. I think the reason it didn't go that way is: 1. CPUs have gotten very good at doing runtime optimization kinds of things on their own, like predicting branches and reducing the cost of virtual function calls. 2.…

Maybe 5 years ago, I wrote a mancala game in C++ and Java. The minmax part was maybe 10% slower in Java.

Re: Performance comparison of Functional C++ 11, Java 8, JavaScript and Wolfram

#17

Post by taliesinb » Fri, Jun 06, 2014, 1:44 AM UTC

Some of the WL code leaves a little to be desired. Here's a more idiomatic and readable Meal:

   Meal[forests_] := 
     Outer[Plus, forests, Permutations[{1, -1, -1}], 1] // Catenate // 
       DeleteDuplicates // Select[AllTrue[NonNegative]];

Re: Performance comparison of Functional C++ 11, Java 8, JavaScript and Wolfram

#18

Post by mtdewcmu » Fri, Jun 06, 2014, 1:45 AM UTC

Afforess wrote: post #10

mtdewcmu wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supposedly, Java is going to be faster than native code any day now. It's been said for years. The case was somewhat credible at one time, because the opportunity exists to optimize using runtime information. I think the reason it didn't go that way is: 1. CPUs have gotten very good at doing runtime optimization kinds of things on their own, like predicting branches and reducing the cost of virtual function calls. 2.…

I have never seen Sun or Oracle make that claim. You seem to simply be ranting on about a strawman argument, with a rather strange java-hate obsession. I mean, Fortran did worse than Java. Where is your writeup for that?

Actually, I made fun of Fortran for that down below. I don't think my comment is a rant.

Re: Performance comparison of Functional C++ 11, Java 8, JavaScript and Wolfram

#19

Post by mtdewcmu » Fri, Jun 06, 2014, 1:51 AM UTC

alayne wrote: post #11

mtdewcmu wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supposedly, Java is going to be faster than native code any day now. It's been said for years. The case was somewhat credible at one time, because the opportunity exists to optimize using runtime information. I think the reason it didn't go that way is: 1. CPUs have gotten very good at doing runtime optimization kinds of things on their own, like predicting branches and reducing the cost of virtual function calls. 2.…

Java's performance relative to other commonly used languages is very good. It's basically been at 2-3x slower than C/C++ for quite a while.

It is very good. But it's not quite fair to compare it to, say ruby or PHP, because it still requires a compilation step, and it's still pretty demanding on the programmer.

Re: Performance comparison of Functional C++ 11, Java 8, JavaScript and Wolfram

#20

Post by georgemcbay » Fri, Jun 06, 2014, 1:52 AM UTC

Afforess wrote: post #10

mtdewcmu wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supposedly, Java is going to be faster than native code any day now. It's been said for years. The case was somewhat credible at one time, because the opportunity exists to optimize using runtime information. I think the reason it didn't go that way is: 1. CPUs have gotten very good at doing runtime optimization kinds of things on their own, like predicting branches and reducing the cost of virtual function calls. 2.…

I have never seen Sun or Oracle make that claim. You seem to simply be ranting on about a strawman argument, with a rather strange java-hate obsession. I mean, Fortran did worse than Java. Where is your writeup for that?

There was certainly a lot of talk within the Java development community about how Java was going to meet or overtake native code as the HotSpot VM matured. See, for example (from 1998):

http://www.artima.com/designtechniques/hotspotP.html

"According to Sun Microsystems, the Hotspot virtual machine, Sun's next-generation Java virtual machine (JVM), promises to make Java "as fast as C++.""