Hacker News Reader

Comment by forgotpwd16 | Hacker News Reader

Loses? My comparison is regarding GP's metric perf/lines_of_code. Let m := perf/lines_of_code = 1/(t × lines_of_code) [highest is better], or to make comparison simpler*, m' := 1/m = t × lines_of_code [lowest is better]. Then**:

   Nim          1672
   Julia        3012
   D            3479
   C# (SIMD)    5853
   C#           8919

>Nim version is not some naive version

It's direct translation of formula, using `mod` rather `x = -x`.

*Rather comparing numbers << 1. **No blank/comment lines. As cloc and similar tools count.

View on HN

Nim "cheats" in a similar way C and C++ submissions do: -fno-signed-zeros -fno-trapping-math

Although arguably these flags are more reasonable than allowing the use of -march=native.

Also consider the inherent advantage popular languages have: you don't need to break out to a completely niche language, while achieving high performance. Saying this, this microbenchmark is naive and does not showcase realistic bottlenecks applications would face like how well-optimized standard library and popular frameworks are, whether the compiler deals with complexity and abstractions well, whether there are issues with multi-threaded scaling, etc etc. You can tell this by performance of dynamically typed languages - since all data is defined in scope of a single function, the compiler needs to do very little work and can hide the true cost of using something like Lua (LuaJIT).

Per the rules[0]: "Use idiomatic code for the language. Compiler optimizations flags are fine."

Agree with the rest of your comment.

[0]: https://github.com/niklas-heer/speed-comparison#rules

> Nim "cheats" in a similar way C and C++ submissions do: -fno-signed-zeros -fno-trapping-math

I don't see these flags in Nim compilation config. The only extra option used is "-march=native"[0].

[0] https://github.com/niklas-heer/speed-comparison/blob/9681e8e...

https://github.com/niklas-heer/speed-comparison/blob/9681e8e...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com