[Pharo-project] CogVM speed
milan.mimica at gmail.com
Mon Mar 26 09:52:28 EDT 2012
Just wanted to point you that 64-bit code is notably faster than 32-bit
code on 64-bit CPUs.
You could put it another way: in order for a Smalltalk program to be
equivalent to a C/C++ program, you would have to strip out all those things
you mention there. But you can't. Now, whose limitation is that?
On 26 March 2012 09:07, Pavel Krivanek <pavel.krivanek at gmail.com> wrote:
> I did it on 64bit. However among other things, there is a big issue
> with equivalence of the programs. Because the same program in C/C++
> would have to be able to be interrupted any time by an user, contain
> debug information to be able to show the computation state in context
> of the source codes and modify temporary and instance variables,
> enumerate instances of any arbitrary class, serialize current
> computation state and continue even on the different platform etc.
> That all costs something and in this light the results of Smalltalk
> look quite impressive ;-)
> -- Pavel
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Milan Mimica <milan.mimica at gmail.com>
> > Have you compared with 32-bit binaries generated by gcc?
> > On 25 March 2012 23:43, Pavel Krivanek <pavel.krivanek at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> I tried a few benchmarks from Computer Language Benchmark Game
> >> (
> >> on CogVM to compare it with VisualWorks and with the rest of the
> >> world.
> >> Of course this benchmarks are not ideal (like all benchmarks) but the
> >> result is that CogVM is in average 1.8 times slower than VisualWorks
> >> 7.8 NC. For the most successful benchmark (binary-trees) it was 13.5
> >> times slower than C (gcc) but in general we may except CogVM to be
> >> 20-30 times slower than C for this kind of tasks.
> >> Thank you for the great work!
> >> Cheers,
> >> -- Pavel
> > --
> > Milan Mimica
> > http://sparklet.sf.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pharo-dev