Jon,
I wanted to run the raytracing benchmark myself to see if Haskell really was
that slow. I'm using ghc 6.10 because that's what ubuntu comes with. I don't
know if ghc 6.12 generates slower executables than 6.10 or what else might be
going on. I ran each several times and the numbers I pasted are typical (+/-
0.2 seconds, say).
j...@ubuntu:~/Desktop$ ghc --version
The Glorious Glasgow Haskell Compilation System, version 6.10.4
j...@ubuntu:~/Desktop$ g++ --version
g++ (Ubuntu 4.4.1-4ubuntu8) 4.4.1
Copyright (C) 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
j...@ubuntu:~/Desktop$ ocamlopt -v
The Objective Caml native-code compiler, version 3.11.1
Standard library directory: /usr/lib/ocaml
I compiled the raytracers for c++, haskell and ocaml from
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/languages/ray_tracer/code/5
and used the compile instructions at
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/languages/ray_tracer/benchmark.html
though I had to change the haskell one to use just ghc instead of specifying a
version. I also ran the ocaml and haskell code in the 1/ directory, and they
completed within 0.1 seconds of each other.
c++
j...@ubuntu:~/Desktop$ time ./ray 9 512 > /dev/null
real 0m3.515s
user 0m3.440s
sys 0m0.016s
haskell
j...@ubuntu:~/Desktop$ time ./ray 9 512 > /dev/null
real 0m5.811s
user 0m5.752s
sys 0m0.032s
ocaml
j...@ubuntu:~/Desktop$ time ./ray 9 512 > /dev/null
real 0m6.572s
user 0m6.544s
sys 0m0.016s
Jeff
_______________________________________________
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
