JS array access is a lot faster than Python array access. JS is easily within magnitude of C and can be even about as fast with typed arrays or well JITable code.
Typed arrays help a lot, but I’m still doubtful. Maybe it all the processing is restrict to idioms in the asm.js subset? And even then you’re getting bounds checking.
E.g. C++ vs Node.js here: https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
Couldn't find C vs JS easily with the new benchmarksgame UI.
Try:
A) Find JS in the box plot charts
https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
or
B) Find JS in the detail
https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
> mpzjs. This library wraps around libgmp's integer functions to perform infinite-precision arithmetic
And then the “array”:
> Buffer.allocUnsafe
So is this a good JavaScript benchmark?
Buffer.allocUnsafe just allocates the memory without zero-initializing it, just like e.g. malloc does. Probably usually not worth it, but in a benchmark it's comparable to malloc vs calloc.
The n-body looks most like canonical JS to me. It’s a small array, but’s it’s accessed many times.
Unfortunately the c++ version is simd optimized, so I don’t think that’s a fair comparison.
https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
If the JIT detects the array as homogenous it will compile it to low level array access. JS JITs are very good.
Shouldn't simd use make it less likely JS would be within magnitude, so if compared against simd programs and the JS is still less than 10x slower then that strengthens jampekka's point?