[Haskell-cafe] Shootout favouring C
bfulg at pacbell.net
Mon Jan 16 14:55:53 EST 2006
Daniel Fischer wrote:
> > Is it only my machime, or can you confirm that for
> > the Ackermann benchmark, it's very good for C that
> > chose 9 and not a larger value? For 10, we are
> > significantly faster and for 11,12,13, we can run
> > rings around the C-programme:
Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
> This is interesting. Hopefully it's not intentional,
> but it's quite obvious that for benchmarks where the
> time is only a few fractions of a second, languages
> complex runtime systems will be unfairly slow due to
> startup cost.
> In other words I'd prefer if all benchmarks are
> reconfigured to target an execution time of at least
> seconds for the fastest benchmarks.
I can confirm that it was not intentional, though we
been aware of the problem. The original shootout used
smaller values of N. About a year ago, we increased
to the levels you see now.
As hardware (and implementations) have improved, it is
time to bump the values yet again.
Part of the problem was that some languages
(*cough*-ruby-*cough*) have extremely poor support for
calls, and will encounter stack overflow or other
N is above 7 or 8. We've changed things a bit to
stack depths to avoid this, but at some point we just
bow to reality and mark Python and Ruby up as failures
Ackermann test (let the hate-mail begin, yet again!).
We've increased the timeouts a bit to help, and the
so I'll rerun the ackermann benchmarks with 9 as the
level, and extending to 10 and 11 at the higher end.
More information about the Haskell-Cafe