Smalltalk benchmarks for Composite systems?
Locked
Smalltalk benchmarks for Composite systems?
 
|
Hi all,
Two years ago, I started a project for a Parser library - unfortunately, at this time, I was not aware of the marvels of Squeak, so I wrote it in C#. Now I've resumed that project and feel the classical, un-live development process more cumbersome than ever. I would love to migrate my project to Smalltalk, but I'm worrying how much slower it will be compared to C#, as I am doing some quite CPU-intensive computations (that take even C# several seconds for small instances).
So I'm searching for some meaningful benchmarks to get an idea of the speed losses to expect. The main computations affect composite traversal, deep copying, etc., so I think the workload should mainly address message-sending. I did not found really good benchmarks searching for "(squeak | smalltalk) vs (c# | java) benchmark" (assuming that C# and Java play in about the same league). Can someone give me a few pointers? In short, under what circumstances would you recommend me to port a computation-intensive library to Smalltalk? Thanks in advance!
Best regards, Christoph _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
Carpe Squeak!
|
Re: Smalltalk benchmarks for Composite systems?
|
|
Hi Christoph
As you did not find a good benchmark I suggest that you design a suite of benchmarks for your own purpose. Use as target the field of application. http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Rosetta_Code Contains many algorithms for different languages. http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Tree_traversal (unfortunaltely Smalltalk version not implemented yet) But there are over 200 tasks done in Smalltalk http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Category:Smalltalk Kind regards Hannes P.S. Also note that the SistaV1 VM will offer a substantial improvement in performance https://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/676 On 9/25/19, Thiede, Christoph <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi all, > > > Two years ago, I started a project for a Parser library - unfortunately, at > this time, I was not aware of the marvels of Squeak, so I wrote it in C#. > Now I've resumed that project and feel the classical, un-live development > process more cumbersome than ever. I would love to migrate my project to > Smalltalk, but I'm worrying how much slower it will be compared to C#, as I > am doing some quite CPU-intensive computations (that take even C# several > seconds for small instances). > > > So I'm searching for some meaningful benchmarks to get an idea of the speed > losses to expect. The main computations affect composite traversal, deep > copying, etc., so I think the workload should mainly address > message-sending. I did not found really good benchmarks searching for > "(squeak | smalltalk) vs (c# | java) benchmark" (assuming that C# and Java > play in about the same league). Can someone give me a few pointers? In > short, under what circumstances would you recommend me to port a > computation-intensive library to Smalltalk? > > Thanks in advance! > > > Best regards, > > Christoph > Beginners mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners |
Re: Smalltalk benchmarks for Composite systems?
|
|
Von: Beginners <[hidden email]> im Auftrag von H. Hirzel <[hidden email]>
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 26. September 2019 10:32:17 An: A friendly place to get answers to even the most basic questions about Squeak. Betreff: Re: [Newbies] Smalltalk benchmarks for Composite systems? Hi Christoph
As you did not find a good benchmark I suggest that you design a suite of benchmarks for your own purpose. Use as target the field of application. http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Rosetta_Code Contains many algorithms for different languages. http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Tree_traversal (unfortunaltely Smalltalk version not implemented yet) But there are over 200 tasks done in Smalltalk http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Category:Smalltalk Kind regards Hannes P.S. Also note that the SistaV1 VM will offer a substantial improvement in performance https://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/676 On 9/25/19, Thiede, Christoph <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi all, > > > Two years ago, I started a project for a Parser library - unfortunately, at > this time, I was not aware of the marvels of Squeak, so I wrote it in C#. > Now I've resumed that project and feel the classical, un-live development > process more cumbersome than ever. I would love to migrate my project to > Smalltalk, but I'm worrying how much slower it will be compared to C#, as I > am doing some quite CPU-intensive computations (that take even C# several > seconds for small instances). > > > So I'm searching for some meaningful benchmarks to get an idea of the speed > losses to expect. The main computations affect composite traversal, deep > copying, etc., so I think the workload should mainly address > message-sending. I did not found really good benchmarks searching for > "(squeak | smalltalk) vs (c# | java) benchmark" (assuming that C# and Java > play in about the same league). Can someone give me a few pointers? In > short, under what circumstances would you recommend me to port a > computation-intensive library to Smalltalk? > > Thanks in advance! > > > Best regards, > > Christoph > _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
Carpe Squeak!
|
Re: Smalltalk benchmarks for Composite systems?
|
|
About one month ago I tested a simple loop speed comparing: C, Squeak, Python, Ruby. C of course is the kind, but that is not really a fair comparison. Of the others 3, which are comparable languages, Squeak was the fastest. bye Nicola On 9/26/19 4:29 AM, Thiede, Christoph
wrote:
_______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners |
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |