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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Have you compared with 32-bit binaries generated by gcc? > > > > > > On 25 March 2012 23:43, Pavel Krivanek <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I tried a few benchmarks from Computer Language Benchmark Game > >> > >> ( > http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/which-programming-languages-are-fastest.php > ) > >> 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 > > -- Milan Mimica http://sparklet.sf.net
