Re:Lua Doesn't Suck – Strange Loop 2010 20-minute talk video
by silentbicycle on Sunday October 17, 2010 @10:29AM
(#1800396)
What we're essentially measuring here is runtime startup and (in some cases) byte-compiling.
Rate python swipl ruby perl lua luac bash ocaml awk subshell ocamlopt c py_pyc shell
python 46.3/s -- -17% -56% -70% -76% -78% -78% -79% -83% -87% -88% -88% -90% -92%
swipl 55.9/s 21% -- -46% -63% -70% -73% -73% -74% -80% -84% -85% -86% -88% -90%
ruby 104/s 125% 86% -- -31% -45% -49% -51% -52% -62% -71% -72% -74% -79% -82%
perl 152/s 229% 172% 46% -- -20% -26% -28% -30% -44% -57% -60% -61% -69% -74%
lua 189/s 309% 239% 82% 25% -- -8% -10% -13% -31% -47% -50% -52% -61% -67%
luac 206/s 345% 268% 98% 35% 9% -- -2% -6% -25% -42% -46% -48% -58% -64%
bash 211/s 356% 277% 103% 39% 11% 3% -- -3% -23% -41% -44% -46% -57% -63%
ocaml 218/s 372% 290% 110% 44% 15% 6% 3% -- -20% -39% -42% -45% -55% -62%
awk 273/s 491% 389% 162% 80% 44% 33% 30% 25% -- -23% -28% -31% -44% -52%
subshell 357/s 672% 539% 243% 135% 89% 74% 69% 64% 31% -- -6% -9% -26% -38%
ocamlopt 379/s 719% 577% 264% 149% 100% 84% 80% 73% 39% 6% -- -4% -22% -34%
c 394/s 751% 604% 278% 159% 108% 91% 87% 80% 44% 10% 4% -- -19% -31%
py_pyc 485/s 950% 768% 366% 219% 156% 136% 130% 122% 78% 36% 28% 23% -- -16%
shell 575/s 1143% 928% 452% 278% 203% 179% 172% 163% 110% 61% 52% 46% 18% --
I added hello world programs for C, SWI Prolog, and OCaml (byte and native compilers). Timings on OpenBSD/amd64.Edit: Since you can precompile Lua, I added that as 'luac'. It's not usually done, since Lua compiles VERY quickly, and the source is more portable. It's a data point, though. I also added a .pyc for Python - Python byte-compiles more slowly. There's little difference between lua and luac, but the difference between python and py_pyc is huge.
I also added shell with a new subshell, both sh and bash. And, source, as requested.
OCaml:
let _ = print_string "Hello world.\n"
Compile with "ocamlc -o ochello foo.ml" for bytecode, "ocamlopt -o ochello.opt foo.ml" for native.SWI Prolog:
swipl => sub { system qq[swipl -g "write('Hello world.\n')." -t "halt."] },
luac: print "Hello, world."
And then compile with "luac hellow.lua", run as "lua luac.out".
E.g. perl(1) is faster than ruby(1) at printing "Hello, world!". But since you presumably had ruby hot in cache and not perl the latter seems to be almost 4 times as slow.
Here's a better benchmark, which runs each of these 500 times and takes the average: http://gist.github.com/630868
Which yields these results:
Update: Added a C program and ran the shell program in a sub-shell (since perl's system function preloads a shell). Didn't add silentbicycle's SWI Prolog and OCaml since he didn't provide the source.