🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Kjetil S. Matheussen wrote:

> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, namekuseijin wrote:
> 
> > I wonder why most functional programming languages fail so badly at
> > what should be one of their primary main strengths:  recursive
> > functions.
> > 
> > In the well-known benchmarking game called "The computer game
> > shootout", most such languages fail miserably in the face of blazing
> > fast imperative code during the benchmarking of recursive functions
> > such as ackermann or fibonacci:
> > 
> > http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=recursive&lang=all
> > 
> > The best is clean, only 1.6 slower than gcc C.
> > 
> > The chart:
> > 1.6 Clean
> > 3.2 OCaml (just behind Fortran and Java!)
> > 3.3 F# (running in mono)
> > 3.4 SML on MLton (just after FreeBasic!)
> > 3.4 Haskell GHC (just after Java on gcj!  almost a tie-in)
> > 3.6 CL on SBCL (almost as good as compiled lazy static Haskell)
> > 3.7 Scheme on Chicken (just after sbcl)
> > 4.0 SML/NJ (just after C# on mono)
> > 4.6 Scheme on Ikarus (just after Java -client!)
> > 8.1 Scheme PLT (just after Fortran, again)
> > 
> > Well, that's about it.
> > 
> 
> Well, Stalin scheme is not on the list. My results:
> 
> * GCC:
> kjetil@ttleush ~/c $ time ./recursive.gcc_run 11
> Ack(3,11): 16381
> Fib(38.0): 63245986.0
> Tak(30,20,10): 11
> Fib(3): 3
> Tak(3.0,2.0,1.0): 2.0
> 
> real    0m2.112s
> user    0m2.021s
> sys     0m0.002s
> 

Options:
/usr/bin/gcc -pipe -Wall -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -march=athlon-xp  recursivec.c -o recursive.gcc_run

gcc version:
gcc (GCC) 4.2.4 (Gentoo 4.2.4 p1.0)



> 
> * Stalin 0.11:
> kjetil@ttleush ~/c $ time ./recursive 11
> Ack(3,11): 16381
> Fib(3.7999999523162841796875e1.0): 6.32459926605224609375e7.0
> Tak(30,20,10): 11
> Fib(3): 3
> Tak(3.0,2.0,1.0): 2.0.0

Don't bother about the not quite accurate printing of numbers,
the calculations themself are correct with the same input
and output values as the C version.



> 
> real    0m1.725s
> user    0m1.635s
> sys     0m0.003s
> 
> 
> Which means that Stalin scheme is about 22% faster than C
> for this particular benchmark, and stalin scheme is a
> dynamic typed functional language.

Well, the types are dynamic unless stalin can't infere the types,
which it obviously could in this example. :-)