Some numbers: Clojure:
]% time java -server -cp clj-starcraft.jar:$HOME/src/clojure/ clojure.jar clojure.main dump.clj misc/replays/*.rep 1047 "Elapsed time: 159605.6084 msecs" java -server -cp clj-starcraft.jar:$HOME/src/clojure/clojure.jar clojure.main 163.84s user 1.11s system 102% cpu 2:41.10 total Java: % time java -server -cp . hu.belicza.andras.bwhf.control.BinRepParser ~/prog/clojure/clj-starcraft/misc/replays/*.rep 1047 java -server -cp . hu.belicza.andras.bwhf.control.BinRepParser 12.92s user 0.31s system 110% cpu 11.923 total On Mar 16, 9:41 pm, Vincent Foley <vfo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Java 1.6.0_07 for Hardy vs Java 1.6.0_10 for Ibex. > > However, with this newer package, the Java program is now more than > 13x faster than my Clojure program. Looks like I got a lot of work > ahead of me. > > Vincent. > > On Mar 16, 9:31 pm, Jeffrey Straszheim <straszheimjeff...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Are they both Java 6? I know it fixed a lot of performance issue over 5. > > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Vincent Foley <vfo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I found that the problem is caused by the version of Sun's JVM on > > > Ubunty Hardy Heron. On my Ibex machine at home, the first two lines > > > (Object.wait and ReferenceQueue.remove) are not even there and the > > > costliest method if AtomicInteger.get. > > > > Vincent. > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
