Re: [go-nuts] Performance comparison of Go, C++, and Java for biological sequencing tool

2019-03-07 Thread Michael Jones
I'm sorry Isaac, I meant multi-language benchmarking generally, nothing about the specific case you mention so i was slightly tangential to your original post. On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 9:41 AM 'Isaac Gouy' via golang-nuts < golang-nuts@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at

Re: [go-nuts] Performance comparison of Go, C++, and Java for biological sequencing tool

2019-03-07 Thread 'Isaac Gouy' via golang-nuts
On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 7:22:41 PM UTC-8, Michael Jones wrote: > > There is another problem about these microbenchmarks as well--they often > are ports of an originating C-version. > Which microbenchmarks? You quoted a reply to a question about "Performance comparison of Go, C++, and

Re: [go-nuts] Performance comparison of Go, C++, and Java for biological sequencing tool

2019-03-06 Thread Robert Engels
I wholeheartedly agree and would add an important point, that ease of development/understanding leads to easier refactoring allowing for improvements in the algorithm- which are usually far more important to performance - which is exactly what you’ve demonstrated. > On Mar 6, 2019, at 9:22

Re: [go-nuts] Performance comparison of Go, C++, and Java for biological sequencing tool

2019-03-06 Thread Michael Jones
There is another problem about these microbenchmarks as well--they often are ports of an originating C-version. I just implemented the Rabbit stream cipher and after reading the papers I reviewed several versions online in Java and two in Go, as well as the now open-source C version. It seems

Re: [go-nuts] Performance comparison of Go, C++, and Java for biological sequencing tool

2019-03-06 Thread 'Isaac Gouy' via golang-nuts
On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 4:03:52 PM UTC-8, Bakul Shah wrote: > > Thanks for an interesting read! > > Curious to know if you guys have any estimates on the number of lines, > development time and number of bugs for each language implementation? I > realize this is subjective but this

Re: [go-nuts] Performance comparison of Go, C++, and Java for biological sequencing tool

2019-03-06 Thread Bakul Shah
Thanks for an interesting read! Curious to know if you guys have any estimates on the number of lines, development time and number of bugs for each language implementation? I realize this is subjective but this comparison may be quite meaningful given that the authors had an existing reference

Re: [go-nuts] Performance comparison of Go, C++, and Java for biological sequencing tool

2019-03-06 Thread Dan Kortschak
It should be pointed out that these three implementations have close to zero testing. In the absence of that, there is little that should be drawn from the integration benchmarks that this suggests. If we relax correct correctness requirements we can get answers in O(1) with small constants. On