121–130 of 142 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To reduce the weight of outliers "average of ratios" and median: https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
Geomean is the same; and it's less sensitive to outliers than arith. mean or median.
Geomean seems less sensitive to outliers than arithmetic mean and more sensitive to outliers than median.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True partly because shared_ptr is a relatively new language feature; I’ve been locked to a ~decade-old C++ compiler for most of my professional career, and so has everyone I know, just because support for a current compiler across platforms at any given time has been historically so spotty. It seems to be improving at the moment. > it won’t be idiomatic I just looked at the first example: C: https://benchmarksgame-te…
You seem to be looking at the wrong source code. The "Energy Efficiency across Programming Languages, SLE’17"authors provided this repo — https://github.com/greensoftwarelab/Energy-Languages/blob/ma... https://github.com/greensoftwarelab/Energy-Languages/tree/ma... For a single outlier (regex-redux) there's a 12x difference between the measured times of the selected C and C++ programs. Even so, that mostly messes up…
Your bottom link shows the same data I see using the link in the article: the C++ is ~50% slower on spectral-norm.
I expect that the 12x outlier is because someone did something very non-optimal in C++.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The banking system.
> million times a day
I can see C having 1.00 in table 4 in the article. But how does Python get 71.90 and JavaScript 4.45 ? Something seems off there.
Standard Python is interpreted all the time, going from instruction to instruction giving a layer of abstraction that never disappears.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to be looking at the wrong source code. The "Energy Efficiency across Programming Languages, SLE’17"authors provided this repo — https://github.com/greensoftwarelab/Energy-Languages/blob/ma... https://github.com/greensoftwarelab/Energy-Languages/tree/ma... For a single outlier (regex-redux) there's a 12x difference between the measured times of the selected C and C++ programs. Even so, that mostly messes up…
Did the article use the wrong link? I used the link in the article. The C++ code from your link looks the same as what I saw. Your bottom link shows the same data I see using the link in the article: the C++ is ~50% slower on spectral-norm. I expect that the 12x outlier is because someone did something very non-optimal in C++.
No, the link grabbing seo provides the correct source for Table 4 — "Source: Energy Efficiency across Programming Languages, SLE’17" — and google finds the article:
https://greenlab.di.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/pap...
> looks the same
Please look again.
> the 12x outlier
#include
vs
#include This is why I'm learning Rust: C# gives fast development speeds than Python with decent performance. Python and Go for when their native libraries smoke C# and now Rust for performance or low level.
Go is not generally faster than C#/Java. There are scenarios where each can come up on top.
So in reality there are very few places where you would want to use Go over modern C#.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fortran is a beast. People crap on it all the time yet use it often millions of times a day without realizing it.
use in what ? I severely doubt anything I do touches fortran millions times a day unless it's google search that runs on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Didn't open with ancient Excel. HTML? txt?
Must be really ancient. Here is table 4 by geomean: (c) C 1.0 (c) Rust 1.1 (c) C++ 1.1 (c) Swift 1.3 (c) Fortran 1.7 (v) Java 1.7 (c) Ada 2.1 (c) Chapel 2.3 (c) Ocaml 2.4 (v) C# 3.0 (c) Go 3.4 (c) Pascal 5.1 (v) F# 5.2 (c) Haskell 5.3 (v) Lisp 6.1 (i) Dart 7.8 (i) JavaScript 8.2 (v) Racket 8.5 (i) Hack 11.0 (v) Erlang 14.6 (i) TypeScript 22.7 (i) PHP 28.7 (i) Jruby 31.6 (i) Ruby 42.6 (i) Python 51.9 (i) Perl 60.5 (i)…
Table 4 has 3 columns.
I can only guess that is the Energy column because the numbers don't match the calculation I made for the Time column.
Pity about https.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Must be really ancient. Here is table 4 by geomean: (c) C 1.0 (c) Rust 1.1 (c) C++ 1.1 (c) Swift 1.3 (c) Fortran 1.7 (v) Java 1.7 (c) Ada 2.1 (c) Chapel 2.3 (c) Ocaml 2.4 (v) C# 3.0 (c) Go 3.4 (c) Pascal 5.1 (v) F# 5.2 (c) Haskell 5.3 (v) Lisp 6.1 (i) Dart 7.8 (i) JavaScript 8.2 (v) Racket 8.5 (i) Hack 11.0 (v) Erlang 14.6 (i) TypeScript 22.7 (i) PHP 28.7 (i) Jruby 31.6 (i) Ruby 42.6 (i) Python 51.9 (i) Perl 60.5 (i)…
> Here is table 4 by geomean Table 4 has 3 columns. I can only guess that is the Energy column because the numbers don't match the calculation I made for the Time column. Pity about https.
The first list considers the time values of "Table 3" in the 2021 paper, i.e. the three CLBG algorithms.
The second list considers the time values of "Table 10" and "Table 11" in the 2021 paper, i.e. the four + five Rosetta algorithms.
I also just noticed that meanwhile they unfortunately removed the tables from the online version of the referenced paper. It's a few years ago since I looked at it.
Concerning the file format you might want to use an online service e.g. like Zamzar to convert.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did the article use the wrong link? I used the link in the article. The C++ code from your link looks the same as what I saw. Your bottom link shows the same data I see using the link in the article: the C++ is ~50% slower on spectral-norm. I expect that the 12x outlier is because someone did something very non-optimal in C++.
Yes, the link grabbing seo claims the benchmarks game has something to say about Java and energy-efficient — in fact the benchmarks game does not measure energy use. No, the link grabbing seo provides the correct source for Table 4 — "Source: Energy Efficiency across Programming Languages, SLE’17" — and google finds the article: https://greenlab.di.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/pap... > looks the same Please l…
I assume you’re referring to regex-redux, but I was confused for a minute there because you linked directly to the C++ code for spectral-norm, not regex-redux, and spectral-norm doesn’t include a regex lib. I had to go looking around for the includes you’re talking about, and the Benchmarks-Game version has multiple C++ entries. There are C++ entries that use pcre, re2, and boost/regex. The C entries all use pcre except the winner, who uses pcre2.
> For a single outlier (regex-redux) there's a 12x difference between the measured times of the selected C and C++ programs.
BTW, I dont know exactly what they’re referring to there. The time ratio of the Benchmarks Game fastest C version to the slowest C++ version is over 16x. The ratios in the SLE paper of energy and run time are a bit lower than 12 but they also have only one sample, and it uses boost, so I don’t see why regex-redux with boost is useful in any perf or energy comparison other than to serve as a mild warning about using boost.
There happens to be a ratio of almost exactly 12x between the slowest C++ version (g++#3 boost) and the fastest C++ version (g++#6 - pcre2). That’s C++ vs C++. Maybe that’s what they were talking about, or maybe the perf numbers have changed out from under the commentary.
The ratio of times of the fastest C to the fastest C++ time with regex-redux is 1.4x and they both use pcre2. That seems like a more reasonable place to start.