[gambit-list] [racket] translate from Racket to Common Lisp
Marc Feeley
feeley at iro.umontreal.ca
Wed Nov 7 15:54:25 EST 2012
Le 2012-11-07 à 2:13 PM, Bradley Lucier <lucier at math.purdue.edu> a écrit :
> I removed the Racket users list from this CC.
>
> Viewable html files containing the results can be found at
>
> http://www.math.purdue.edu/~lucier/bench-gambit-2012-11-06/
>
> Brad
Thank you Brad and Matthew for running the benchmarks. There are some discrepancies between your results (on 64 bits) which are worrisome. The discrepancies may be due to a difference in compiler options or declarations that one of you is using that the other is not using. For example, these are the numbers you reported (R/G is the execution time ratio between Racket and Gambit):
benchmark Brad says Matthew says
dynamic R/G = 1.33 R/G = 0.48 (that's almost a factor of 3 difference!)
ctak R/G = 63.67 R/G = 30.44
puzzle R/G = 2.60 R/G = 1.32
paraffins R/G = 1.89 R/G = 1.38
peval R/G = 1.49 R/G = 1.13
Given that Brad has a better knowledge of Gambit, and Matthew has a better knowledge of Racket, it wouldn't be surprizing that they used Gambit and Racket differently.
I wonder if these discrepancies are due to
- different assumptions (perhaps Brad used declarations which assume that global variables will not be mutated if they are not set!, which Matthew is not using)
- different hardware (perhaps memory access is relatively faster on one of these machines)
- different heap sizes
- different C compilers
It would be interesting to know where these differences come from, so that we know for future benchmarking experiments.
Marc
More information about the Gambit-list
mailing list