From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id VAA16049; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 21:17:34 +0100 (MET) Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id VAA16056 for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 21:17:31 +0100 (MET) Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA00693 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 02:48:27 +0100 (MET) Received: from swordfish.cs.caltech.edu (swordfish.cs.caltech.edu [131.215.44.124]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h051mQr05933; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 02:48:26 +0100 (MET) Received: from orchestra.cs.caltech.edu (orchestra.cs.caltech.edu [131.215.44.20]) by swordfish.cs.caltech.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 638A5DF26F; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 17:48:24 -0800 (PST) Received: (from mvanier@localhost) by orchestra.cs.caltech.edu (8.11.6/8.9.3) id h051mOl26189; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 17:48:24 -0800 Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 17:48:24 -0800 Message-Id: <200301050148.h051mOl26189@orchestra.cs.caltech.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: orchestra.cs.caltech.edu: mvanier set sender to mvanier@cs.caltech.edu using -f From: Michael Vanier To: brian.hurt@qlogic.com Cc: xavier.leroy@inria.fr, onlyclimb@163.com, caml-list@inria.fr In-reply-to: (message from Brian Hurt on Sat, 4 Jan 2003 19:13:11 -0600 (CST)) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] speed References: Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk > Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 19:13:11 -0600 (CST) > From: Brian Hurt > > Startup costs dominate in Bagley's shootout. Look at matrix > multiplication- the fastest tests (C, C++, and Ocaml) are running in > 70-110 milliseconds. Most timers are accurate only to ~10 milliseconds, > which means the time for the C program to run could be anything from > 600 millisecond to 800 milliseconds, for an error of +/-14.3%. > > Java has huge start up costs. First off, you have the JIT. Then, there > is a time delay before hotspot kicks in an actually starts optimizing the > code to any signifigant extent. Notice that the pro-Java benchmarks run > the code to be benchmarked a few thousands or tens of thousands of times > before starting the timer, so that the hotspot optimizer has already been > over the code a couple of times. Or at least once, to bypass JIT time. > Is this a legitimate tactic? Lies, damned lies, and cross-language > benchmarks. I think it is a legitimate tactic. If your code can run in 100 milliseconds, I could care less about performance. I want high performance for programs that are going to run for hours, days, or weeks. For these, startup costs should hardly matter. > Note that I, personally, think that performance should be the last reason > used to pick a language. Things like correctness of the code, available > libraries and environments, and existing talents and skills of the > workforce, should instead take precedence. > > Brian > True, but it depends a lot on the application. If you're doing heavy graphics or big simulations, you simply can't ignore performance. Mike ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners