Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
Ray tracer language comparison
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Thomas Fischbacher <Thomas.Fischbacher@P...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Ray tracer language comparison

On Tue, 4 Oct 2005, Jon Harrop wrote:

> 
> I've updated my language comparison with four implementations in Scheme and 
> one in Lisp:
> 
>   http://www.ffconsultancy.com/free/ray_tracer/languages.html
> 
> In short, Stalin's run-time performance is excellent (36% faster than 
> ocamlopt) but its compile times are poor (2,000x slower than ocamlopt!) and 
> SBCL-compiled Lisp is 6x slower than ocamlopt. Both Scheme and Lisp are >2x 
> as verbose as OCaml.

As you may have seen from my initial reply to that posting, I originally 
was quite sceptical. However, I had a somewhat lengthy PM conversation 
with Dr. Jon Harrop where he kindly and patiently explained to me his 
methodology and findings, and eventually, this inspired me to contribute 
another benchmark (which I did of my own) to this comparison. As this 
issue created a lot of traffic on comp.lang.functional, comp.lang.scheme, 
comp.lang.java.programmer, and some other newsgroups, this could even be 
of interest to a broader audience.

It's here:

http://www.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~tf/raytracer/

-- 
regards,               tf@cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de              (o_
 Thomas Fischbacher -  http://www.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~tf  //\
(lambda (n) ((lambda (p q r) (p p q r)) (lambda (g x y)           V_/_
(if (= x 0) y (g g (- x 1) (* x y)))) n 1))                  (Debian GNU)