Newsgroups: alt.lang.intercal,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.logo,comp.lang.misc
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!hood.cc.rochester.edu!news.acsu.buffalo.edu!dsinc!spool.mu.edu!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!netcom.com!nazgul
From: nazgul@netcom.com (Louis Howell)
Subject: Recursive Benchmark in 14 Languages
Message-ID: <nazgulE1F1AE.EsI@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 07:39:50 GMT
Lines: 39
Sender: nazgul@netcom18.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:229032 comp.lang.lisp:23902 comp.lang.logo:2966 comp.lang.misc:27302

I've put up a half-serious benchmark page with comparisons of a simple
recursive algorithm implemented using 14 different programming languages.
All times were measured on a Pentium machine running Linux (except for
MSWLogo), using free compilers and interpreters.  For some languages I
tried more than one implementation, which is why there are more than 14
entries listed.

Here is the list, arranged from fastest to slowest:

Gnu C++ (Template Metaprogram)
Gnu C
P2C Pascal Translator
Algol 60 to C Translator
CMU Common Lisp
Gnu Common Lisp
MIT Scheme
MIT Scheme without Numerics
Scheme 48
P4 Pascal P-code Interpreter
Ghostscript
Emacs Lisp
Gnu Awk
Orthogonal
TeX
Algol 60 Interpreter
INTERCAL
UCB Logo
MSW Logo
Pascal in Logo
Lisp in Awk

The speeds measured covered a full six orders of magnitude, and that's
without trying to count the template metaprogram (which solves the entire
problem at compile time).

http://www.webcom.com/nazgul/change.html

Louis Howell
nazgul@netcom.com
