On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 14:18:52 -0400, Jon Hylands <jon at huv.com> wrote:

> I have a version of Squeak 1.23, and copying the tinyBenchmark code to it,
> on my 1.0 GHz P3 WinXP laptop, I get:
> 
> 	35,106,966 bytecodes/sec; 1,054,243 sends/sec
> 
> On Squeak 3.7 (same machine), I get:
> 
> 	108,291,032 bytecodes/sec; 3,063,725 sends/sec

Interestingly, I just tried VisualSmalltalk with this code (it hasn't
changed since 1997).

	195,121,951 bytecodes/sec; 28,684,633 sends/sec

On VisualWorks 5i.2 (which is the newest one I have on my machine), I get:

	248,062,015 bytecodes/sec; 32,210,422 sends/sec

So, in terms of bytecodes per second, 5i2 is 2.5x faster than Squeak. For
sends per second, the answer is 10x, but I suspect the benchmark fails due
to some kind of JIT optimization.

It would be interesting to try some more complex benchmarks of Smalltalk
code on various platforms...

Later,
Jon

--------------------------------------------------------------
   Jon Hylands      Jon at huv.com      http://www.huv.com/jon

  Project: Micro Seeker (Micro Autonomous Underwater Vehicle)
           http://www.huv.com