From: brabuhr@...
Date: 2009-08-26T07:18:36+09:00
Subject: Re: Comparison Ruby, Python, Php, Groovy ecc.

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Nathan Keel<nat.k@gm.ml> wrote:
> Marco Mastrodonato wrote:
>> Comparison script languages for the fractal geometry, these are the
>> languages i tested:
>>
>> Java
>> Lua 5.1.4
>> Php 5.3.0
>> Python 2.6.2
>> Python 3.1.1
>> Jython 2.5.0
>> Groovy 1.6.3
>> Jruby 1.3.1
>> Ruby 1.9.1 p129
>> Ruby 1.8.6 p368
>> Ruby 1.8.6 p111
>> IronRuby 0.9.0
>> IronPython 2.0.2
>> Perl 5.10.0
>>
>> Let me know yours comment
>>
>> http://mastrodonato.info/index.php/2009/08/comparison-script-languages-for-the-fractal-geometry/?lang=en
>
> A decent try and honest, but there are too many variables involved.
> ...  Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what you're doing here and it's
> a good attempt, I just think there are too many variables...
> you might offer something in C and C++ to compare to compiled Java,
> unless you believe that those aren't viable comparison languages for
> some reason?

OpenJDK Client VM (build 14.0-b08, mixed mode, sharing)
> java Bench1 > /dev/null
Java Elapsed 0.08
Java Elapsed 0.079
Java Elapsed 0.079

ruby 1.9.2dev (2009-08-25 trunk 24642) [i686-linux]
> ruby bench1.rb > /dev/null
Ruby Elapsed 3.515
Ruby Elapsed 3.352
Ruby Elapsed 3.523

jruby 1.3.0 (ruby 1.8.6p287) (2009-06-03 5dc2e22) (OpenJDK Client VM
1.6.0_0) [i386-java]
> jruby bench1.rb > /dev/null
Ruby Elapsed 4.185
Ruby Elapsed 3.760
Ruby Elapsed 3.626

ruby 1.9.2dev (2009-08-25 trunk 24642) [i686-linux]
> ruby -rubygems bench2.rb > /dev/null
Ruby Elapsed 0.059
Ruby Elapsed 0.058
Ruby Elapsed 0.060

jruby 1.3.0 (ruby 1.8.6p287) (2009-06-03 5dc2e22) (OpenJDK Client VM
1.6.0_0) [i386-java]
> jruby -rubygems bench2.rb > /dev/null
Ruby Elapsed 0.409
Ruby Elapsed 0.410
Ruby Elapsed 0.412


require 'ffi-inliner'

BAILOUT = 16
MAX_ITERATIONS = 1000

class Bench2
  extend Inliner

  def initialize
    puts "Rendering..."
    for y in -39..39
      for x in -39..39
        print iterate(x/40.0, y/40.0) == 0 ? "*" : " "
      end
      print "\n"
    end
  end

  inline <<-EO
    int n;

    int iterate(double x, double y)
    {
      int i = 0;
      double zi = 0.0;
      double zr = 0.0;
      double zi2, zr2, temp;
      double ci = x;
      double cr = y-0.5;
      while(i < #{MAX_ITERATIONS}) {
        i++;
        temp = zr * zi;
        zr2 = zr * zr;
        zi2 = zi * zi;
        zr = zr2 - zi2 + cr;
        zi = temp + temp + ci;
        if(zi2 + zr2 > #{BAILOUT}) return i;
      }
      return 0;
    }
  EO
end

time = Time.now
Bench2.new
STDERR.puts "Ruby Elapsed %.3f" % (Time.now - time)


In this case, the original Ruby version of the method looked so much
like C that I don't think you lose much in readability by inlining
(except for loss of vim's syntax highlighting).