Hi Alex,
>> > java wl ErsatzLisp Pil32 Pil64
>> > +---------------------------------------
>> > (fibo 22) | 25 0.19 0.015 0.016
>> > (fibo 23) | 45 0.25 0.026 0.024
>> > (fibo 24) | 69 0.36 0.041 0.039
>> > (fibo 25) | 122 0.52 0.060 0.063
I'm surprised that pil32 performs the same as pil64 even though it
doesn't have short numbers.
While we are discussing this microbenchmark, I was curious how does
picolisp compare to Lua:
| | pil64-3.0.4 | lua-5.1 | luajit-2.0.0 | c -O2 |
|---------+-------------+---------+--------------+-------|
| fibo 25 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.01 | |
| fibo 30 | 0.16 | 0.18 | 0.08 | |
| fibo 40 | 19.54 | 22.32 | 8.78 | 1.30 |
What about implementing JIT for picolisp? ;-D
I was also surprised that changing:
(de fibo (N)
(if (> 2 N)
1
(+ (fibo (dec N)) (fibo (- N 2))) ) )
to
(de fibo (N)
(if (< N 3)
N
(+ (fibo (dec N)) (fibo (- N 2))) ) )
had such significant effect. The version with (> 2 N) is much slower:
| | pil64-3.0.4 |
|---------+-------------|
| fibo 25 | 0.03 |
| fibo 30 | 0.27 |
| fibo 40 | 31.08 |
The experiment is at:
$ git clone http://logand.com/git/bench-fibo.git
Simply
$ make
$ make bench
to see the results.
Cheers,
Tomas
--
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
