From: Piyush Ranjan <piyush.pr@...>
Date: 2009-08-26T05:33:16+09:00
Subject: Re: Comparison Ruby, Python, Php, Groovy ecc.

Okay that table got completely screwed. I will try once more or you
may get these results here http://pastie.org/594583


Language               Time for 100 iterations            Times slower
than java with -server
java1.6 –server             0.18                                  1
Ruby1.8.7                    7.78                                 44.07
Ruby1.9.2                    4.2                                   23.78
Jruby                           2.5                                   14.16
Jruby1.3.1—sever         2.31                                 13.1
java1.6 -client               0.18                                 1.01
python 2.6.2                 3.04                                 17.21


 Jruby is the fastest here with 13 times slower than java. I am sure there
 are other command line options which may allow jruby to perform faster, that
 I am not aware of. Also shows ruby1.9.2 is slower than python 2.6.2



On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:54 AM, Piyush Ranjan <piyush.pr@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I just ran a few of these benchmarks on my machine. I got different results
> Linux 2.6.28-11-generic GNU/Linux
> Intel core 2 duo 2GHz, 2MB L2 cache, 3GB ram DDR
>
>         Language Time for 100 iterations times slower than java with
> -server  java1.6 –server 0.18 1  Ruby1.8 7.78 44.07  Ruby1.9.2 4.2 23.78
> Jruby 2.5 14.16  Jruby1.3.1—sever 2.31 13.1  java1.6 -client
> 0.18 1.01  python 2.6.2
> 3.04 17.21
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jruby is the fastest here with 13 times slower than java. I am sure there
> are other command line options which may allow jruby to perform faster, that
> I am not aware of. Also shows ruby1.9.2 is slower than python 2.6.2
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Marco Mastrodonato <
> m.mastrodonato@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Urabe Shyouhei wrote:
> > > If you really need speed recompiling is the easiest way to achieve it.
> >
> > The aim is a languages's comparison, using the downlodable package
> > ...without the need to compile every interpreter. I could be agree with
> > you about a "real comparison", but this is the practise done by the
> > 99,5% of the windows users.
> >
> > @Pascal
> > Sorry, i'm having some trouble with lisp, have i to use the txt format?
> > Or have i to compile it first? Take a look:
> >
> > C:\Lavoro\Progetti\Test\Bench\multilanguage>sbcl --no-userinit --eval
> > '(load (compile-file "bench1.lisp"))' --eval '(quit)'
> > This is SBCL 1.0.29, an implementation of ANSI Common Lisp.
> > More information about SBCL is available at <http://www.sbcl.org/>.
> >
> > SBCL is free software, provided as is, with absolutely no warranty.
> > It is mostly in the public domain; some portions are provided under
> > BSD-style licenses.  See the CREDITS and COPYING files in the
> > distribution for more information.
> >
> > This is experimental prerelease support for the Windows platform: use
> > at your own risk.  "Your Kitten of Death awaits!"
> >
> > debugger invoked on a END-OF-FILE:
> >  end of file on #<SB-IMPL::STRING-INPUT-STREAM {23B59BD1}>
> >
> > Type HELP for debugger help, or (SB-EXT:QUIT) to exit from SBCL.
> >
> > restarts (invokable by number or by possibly-abbreviated name):
> >  0: [CONTINUE] Ignore runtime option --eval "'(load".
> >  1: [ABORT   ] Skip rest of --eval and --load options.
> >  2:            Skip to toplevel READ/EVAL/PRINT loop.
> >  3: [QUIT    ] Quit SBCL (calling #'QUIT, killing the process).
> >
> > (SB-IMPL::STRING-INCH #<SB-IMPL::STRING-INPUT-STREAM {23B59BD1}> T NIL)
> > 0]
> > --
> > Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> >
> >