ARMv7 vs. x86-64: Pathfinding benchmark of C++, D, Go, Nim, Ocaml, and more

Re:ARMv7 vs. x86-64: Pathfinding benchmark of C++, D, Go, Ni... by mrottenkolber on Saturday December 20, 2014 @09:13AM (#8776657)

Nope sorry. I tried to fix this up a little but this is too convoluted for me to work with.

Q1: Why do you need an adjustable array?

Q2: Why do you need a structure with a single slot (node)?

If you want to benchmark a piece of code, please write a nice version and then optimize it. How can I reason about a benchmark result if the code is not understandable?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ARMv7 vs. x86-64: Pathfinding benchmark of C++, D, Go, Ni... by wtf_is_up on Saturday December 20, 2014 @01:31PM (#8777409)

Many others were able to send pull requests. What's you're issue?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ARMv7 vs. x86-64: Pathfinding benchmark of C++, D, Go, Ni... by mrottenkolber on Sunday December 21, 2014 @09:15AM (#8779782)

The original code was badly written so that is was hard to understand the algorithm. I tried to rewrite it but it took longer than I had patience for.

The snarky tone comes from the fact that people often post "benchmarks" including languages they can't program in resulting in a misrepresentation.

E.g. Lisp jumped from the bottom to the center (as expected) of the benchmarks after somebody donated a sane implementation.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ARMv7 vs. x86-64: Pathfinding benchmark of C++, D, Go, Ni... by jawngee on Saturday December 20, 2014 @10:16AM (#8776784)

You should ask for a refund.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ARMv7 vs. x86-64: Pathfinding benchmark of C++, D, Go, Ni... by mrottenkolber on Sunday December 21, 2014 @09:24AM (#8779802)

I should, he used SBCL ticks (relative unit of time) as if they were milliseconds.

[ Parent | on HN ]