[Haskell-cafe] Can Haskell outperform C++?
ok at cs.otago.ac.nz
Tue May 22 03:54:58 CEST 2012
On 22/05/2012, at 4:15 AM, Isaac Gouy wrote:
>> Actually, I/O bound is *good*.
> Why would that be good or bad?
The context here is a UNIX-style topological sorting program.
Being I/O bound means that the program is limited by how fast
it can read the data. If 90% of the time goes into reading
the data, that means that the *algorithmic* part is fast enough.
There may be very little one can do about the I/O part.
> I suppose you're just suggesting that, in this case, the performance characteristics of the Java and Smalltalk programs are similar to the C program; but, for whatever reason, you're leaving us guessing about the timings for those other programs.
I didn't _think_ I'd omitted anything important. Oh well.
For 25,000 nodes and 2,989,635 edges,
Java (first version) 4.83 seconds -- uses ArrayList, HashMap
Java (2nd version) 4.17 seconds -- uses own IntList
Java (3rd version) 4.09 seconds -- different approach
Smalltalk 4.40 seconds
C 0.92 seconds -- my code
Mac OS X tsort(1) 150.35 seconds -- 11.84 user + 138.51 system
For 50,000 nodes and 8,385,254 edges,
Java (first version) ran out of memory after 89.54 seconds (default heap)
Java (2nd version) 13.31 seconds -- avoid Integer boxing!
Java (3rd version) 15.07 seconds
Smalltalk 14.52 seconds
C 2.36 seconds
Mac OS X tsort(1) 482.32 seconds -- 41.55 user + 440.77 system
The Mac OS X tsort(1) is presumably written in C. Symbols have been
stripped, so even with Instruments I can't see where the time is going.
Judging from its memory behaviour, I believe that most of the time is
going in the input phase, which suggests a spectacularly inefficient
symbol table, which suggests that it might be using a not-very-modified
version of the Unix V7 code, which used a linear search...
>>> Of course, to some degree, user defined hash functions remedy that specific problem.
>> While creating other, and perhaps worse, ones.
>> For example, in the Smalltalk code, if you use a Dictionary of Strings,
>> you're getting Robert Jenkin's hash function in optimised C. If you
>> supply your own, you're getting a very probably worse hash function
>> and it's going to run rather slower. And above all, the stuff you are
>> benchmarking is no longer code that people are actually likely to write.
> I think you're being a touch quarrelsome :-)
That upset me. All I was saying is that surely the only *point* of
talking about the performance of *languages* is to get some idea of
how well programs are likely to do, and not any old specially crafted
code, but the kind of code that is likely to be written for purposes
other than benchmarking. So the more you bash on a particular example
to get the time down, the less representative it is of the kind of code
people are likely to write *for purposes other than benchmarking*.
Just today I marked a student program where their program took 15 minutes
and my model answer took a touch under 4 milliseconds. I explained to
them _that_ their program was spectacularly slow. They already knew _why_
it was. I also explained the one trick (lazy initialisation) that could
have hugely improved the time. I also told them that they had made the
right decision, to optimise *their* time, not the computer's, in their
> Do *all* Smalltalk language implementations provide that same hash function in optimised C?
*That* function, no. *Some* hash function as a "primitive" (meaning
optimised C), well, I don't have every Smalltalk, but the ones I do
have, I've checked, and yes they do.
> Have Smalltalk language implementations *always* provided that same hash function in optimised C?
Obviously not: Smalltalk-80 ran on Xerox D-machines, which didn't *have*
C. "Primitives" were implemented in microcode.
> Have you researched what code people are actually likely to write, or are you just speculating? ;-)
I'm in my 6th decade. I've seen a lot of code in a lot of languages.
>> "It depends" is the second best answer we can get.
>> The best answer is one that says _what_ it depends on.
> That may be the best answer to some other question - but for the stated question I think were looking for a Yes or a No :-)
The subject line has the obvious and boring answer "yes, of course".
I recall one time when I wanted to analyse some data and typed up
Fortran code for a suitable technique from a book. It didn't work.
After struggling to debug it for a while, I implemented the whole
thing from scratch in Prolog. Then I went back to the Fortran
code, spotted my typing mistake, and fixed it. Result, two working
programs. The Prolog program (compiled to a VM which was emulated;
the compiler was not very clever) ran faster than the Fortran program
(compiled to native code by a seriously optimising compiler from a
major computer manufacturer).
Reason? Same algorithm, different data structure. The data structure
was one that was easy to express in Prolog (or Haskell!) but would
have been insanely difficult in Fortran 77. This century's Fortran is
of course another matter.
The point here of course is that there are data structures and algorithms
that are easy to express in some languages but hard in others, so that
in code written *for purposes other than benchmarking*, they just would
not be _used_ in one of those languages.
More information about the Haskell-Cafe