Thue-Morse and performance: Squeak v.s. Strongtalk v.s.
andreas.raab at gmx.de
Sun Dec 17 10:52:36 UTC 2006
Klaus D. Witzel wrote:
> I'm disappointed, Strongtalk was always advertised as being the fastest
> Smalltalk available "...executes Smalltalk much faster than any other
> Smalltalk implementation...", and now it shows to be in almost the same
> class as Squeak is :) :(
> Can somebody reproduce the figures, any other results? Have I done
> something wrong?
Yes. First, you are equating the result of a single micro-benchmark with
overall system performance. Micro-benchmarks are used to measure
specific aspects of a particular implementation. Your benchmark measures
highly polymorphic send performance. Which is not typical for Smalltalk
code to begin with.
In other words, your claim is based on measuring a single atypical
performance characteristic. This has *nothing* to do with "Smalltalk
performance". If you want to measure "Smalltalk performance" you should
run a number of the standard benchmarks (Richards, Slopstone) that come
with Strongtalk and compare those.
Quite honestly, I'm surprised to see a person like you who obviously
understands enough about dynamic systems to measure PIC effects to make
such unsubstantiated claims. I would expect that you know how to
evaluate the results of a micro-benchmarks, and I would in particular
expect that you know that 80-90% of all call-sites in realistic code are
mono-morphic to begin with which render your benchmark results
absolutely useless for "Smalltalk code".
More information about the Squeak-dev