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 icefox on Saturday December 20, 2014 @12:59PM (#8777297)

Something not measure that is just as important as speed (if not more so) was how long it took to create a working program in each language.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ARMv7 vs. x86-64: Pathfinding benchmark of C++, D, Go, Ni... by wtf_is_up on Saturday December 20, 2014 @01:23PM (#8777384)

Agreed. We must also consider what a pain in the ass it was to set up the toolchains and/or runtimes for several of the tested languages.

I'm willing to trade a little performance and do a little extra error checking if it means I can just do:

    GOARCH=arm go build

and then copy the binary over.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ARMv7 vs. x86-64: Pathfinding benchmark of C++, D, Go, Ni... by logicchains on Sunday December 21, 2014 @05:47AM (#8779450)

> Agreed. We must also consider what a pain in the ass it was to set up the toolchains and/or runtimes for several of the tested languages.

The Arch Linux package repository proved really awesome here: for the vast majority of things (everything on x86) I could just `pacman -S myLang`. The hardest to install was SBCL on ARM, as I needed another Common Lisp to compile it, so had to get ClozureCL and use that.

[ Parent | on HN ]