This is the mail archive of the guile@cygnus.com mailing list for the guile project.
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
hjstein@bfr.co.il (Harvey J. Stein) writes: > 5. For that matter *why* is the debuggging interpreter 3-4x slower than the > nondebugging one?!?!? TCL & STk give tracebacks on error and I've > verified that STk is competitive with scm in speed, let alone with > guile with debugging *off*! Sigh... Andres' figures indicated that scm5d0 was 800% faster than Guile. When checking it myself I found that scm5d0 was 144% faster than the debugging evaluator and 43% faster than the normal with his test profram. (I used the development snapshot, but the difference between that and the released 1.3 should be withing the 30% I talked about previously.) I also could see that for something more similar to a real program (Aubrey's pi.scm) scm5d0 was only 13% faster. Now you claim that STk is competitive with the normal Guile evaluator. I checked: STk 3.99.3 took 362 s to do (pi 100 5) 60 times. Guile's normal evaluator took 61 s. This tells me that Guile is 490% faster than STk. For the debugging evaluator it took 151 s => 140% faster than STk. It is obviously so that people write whatever they like without checking when it concerns speed of execution, so the message is: Don't listen to what people say about speed! Check for yourself. My experience hitherto is that I've never encountered *any* Scheme interpreter which has been faster than Guile's normal evaluator except for SCM. So it is still my belief that Guile is the second fastest interpreter in the world. I'm amazed that people are complaining about performance problems. /mdj