https://github.com/jabbalaci/SpeedTests
comparing the execution speeds of various programming languages
https://github.com/jabbalaci/SpeedTests
benchmark c clang cpp csharp d dart go haskell hyperfine java kotlin linux lua nim polyglot pypy3 python3 rust zig
Last synced: 15 days ago
JSON representation
comparing the execution speeds of various programming languages
- Host: GitHub
- URL: https://github.com/jabbalaci/SpeedTests
- Owner: jabbalaci
- License: mit
- Created: 2020-06-22T07:37:25.000Z (almost 5 years ago)
- Default Branch: master
- Last Pushed: 2024-02-28T20:03:54.000Z (about 1 year ago)
- Last Synced: 2024-04-16T00:08:41.863Z (about 1 year ago)
- Topics: benchmark, c, clang, cpp, csharp, d, dart, go, haskell, hyperfine, java, kotlin, linux, lua, nim, polyglot, pypy3, python3, rust, zig
- Language: Python
- Homepage:
- Size: 24.6 MB
- Stars: 61
- Watchers: 7
- Forks: 21
- Open Issues: 4
-
Metadata Files:
- Readme: README.md
- License: LICENSE
Awesome Lists containing this project
README
# Speed Tests
When I learn a new programming language, I always implement the
Münchausen numbers problem in the given language. The problem is
simple but it includes a lot of computations, thus it gives an
idea of the execution speed of a language.
## Münchausen numbers
A [Münchausen number](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_digit-to-digit_invariant)
is a number equal to the sum of its digits raised to each digit's power.
For instance, 3435 is a Münchausen number because
33+44+33+55 = 3435.
00 is not well-defined, thus we'll consider 00=0.
In this case there are four Münchausen numbers: 0, 1, 3435, and 438579088.
## Exercise
Write a program that finds all the Münchausen numbers. We know that the largest
Münchausen number is less than 440 million.
## Updates
Dates are in `yyyy-month` format.
**2025-April:** Python 3 with Rust removed.
**2025-March:** Nim was updated to version 2.2.2. C# was updated to version 9.0.
Forth was added. Racket got an improved implementation. Lua updated. PHP updated. Nelua was added.
## Implementations
In the implementations I tried to use the same (simple) algorithm in order
to make the comparisons as fair as possible.
All the tests were run on my home desktop machine (Intel Core i7-4771 CPU @ 3.50GHz with 8 CPU cores)
using Manjaro Linux. Execution times are wall-clock times and they are measured with
[hyperfine](https://github.com/sharkdp/hyperfine) (warmup runs: 1, benchmarked runs: 2).
The following implementations were received in the form of pull requests:
- Clojure, Common LISP, Crystal, D, FASM, Forth, Fortran, Haskell, JavaScript, Lua, Mojo,
NASM, OCaml, Pascal, Perl, PHP, Python 3 with Numba, Racket,
Ruby, Scala 3, Scheme, Swift, Toit, V, Zig
Thanks for the contributions!
If you know how to make something faster, let me know!
Languages are listed in alphabetical order.
The size of the EXE files can be further reduced with the command `strip -s`. If it's
applicable, then the stripped EXE size is also shown in the table.
Below, you can find **single-threaded** implemetations. We also have
some **multi-threaded** implementations, [see here](_parallel).
---
### C
* gcc (GCC) 13.2.1 20230801
* clang version 16.0.6
* Benchmark date: 2024-02-05 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Compilation | Runtime (sec) | EXE (bytes) | stripped EXE (bytes) |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `gcc -O3 main.c -o main -lm` | 3.893 ± 0.01 | 15,560 | 14,408 |
| `gcc -O2 main.c -o main -lm` | 3.892 ± 0.001 | 15,560 | 14,408 |
| `clang -O3 main.c -o main -lm` | 2.684 ± 0.013 | 15,528 | 14,416 |
| `clang -O2 main.c -o main -lm` | 2.672 ± 0.001 | 15,528 | 14,416 |
Notes:
* No real difference between the switches `-O2` and `-O3`.
It's enough to use `-O2`.
* clang is better in this case
[see source](c)
### C#
* dotnet 9.0.102
* Benchmark date: 2025-03-02 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Compilation | Runtime (sec) | EXE (bytes) | -- |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `dotnet publish -o dist -c Release` | 5.064 ± 0.01 | 77,736 | -- |
Notes:
* Similar performance to Java.
* 0.6 seconds faster than .NET 8.0.
[see source](cs)
### C++
* g++ (GCC) 13.2.1 20230801
* clang version 16.0.6
* Benchmark date: 2024-02-05 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Compilation | Runtime (sec) | EXE (bytes) | stripped EXE (bytes) |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `g++ -O3 --std=c++2a main.cpp -o main` | 3.865 ± 0.01 | 15,936 | 14,432 |
| `g++ -O2 --std=c++2a main.cpp -o main` | 3.849 ± 0.012 | 15,936 | 14,432 |
| `clang++ -O3 --std=c++2a main.cpp -o main` | 2.913 ± 0.01 | 15,904 | 14,440 |
| `clang++ -O2 --std=c++2a main.cpp -o main` | 2.827 ± 0.015 | 15,904 | 14,440 |
Notes:
* No big difference between the switches `-O2` and `-O3`.
Using `-O2` is even better.
* clang is better in this case
[see source](cpp)
### Clojure
* Clojure CLI version 1.12.0.1479
* Benchmark date: 2024-10-08 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Execution | Runtime (sec) | compiled / transpiled output size (bytes) | -- |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `clj -M -m main` | 5.631 ± 0.112 | -- | -- |
| ``mkdir classes && java -cp `clj -Spath` main`` | 5.339 ± 0.101 | -- | -- |
[see source](clojure)
Notes:
* A bit slower than Java.
### Codon
* codon 0.15.5
* Benchmark date: 2023-04-02 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Compilation | Runtime (sec) | EXE (bytes) | stripped EXE (bytes) |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `codon build -release main.py` | 5.369 ± 0.006 | 28,400 | 26,864 |
Notes:
* Codon is a high-performance Python compiler that compiles Python code
to native machine code without any runtime overhead.
* It's a bit faster than C#!
* The code is unchanged Python code. No type annotations are needed.
See https://github.com/exaloop/codon for more information about this compiler.
[see source](codon)
### Common LISP
* GNU CLISP 2.49.93+ (2018-02-18) (built on arojas [135.181.138.48])
* SBCL 2.2.5
* Benchmark date: 2022-09-02 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Execution | Runtime (sec) | -- | -- |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `clisp -C main.cl` | 321.049 ± 0.484 | -- | -- |
| `sbcl --script main.cl` | 6.828 ± 0.003 | -- | -- |
Notes:
* `clisp` is very slow. Almost as slow as Python. And without the
`-C` switch, it's ten times slower.
* With `sbcl`, you can get excellent performance.
[see source](clisp)
### Crystal
* Crystal 1.13.2 (2024-09-08); LLVM: 18.1.8; Default target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
* Benchmark date: 2024-10-13 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Compilation | Runtime (sec) | EXE (bytes) | stripped EXE (bytes) |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `crystal build --release main.cr` | 4.237 ± 0.077 | 807,432 | 273,424 |
Notes:
* The runtime is very good, similar to Go.
* The source code is almost identical to the Ruby source code.
* The build time is also good. In a previous version (2022) it was painfully slow.
See https://crystal-lang.org for more info about this language.
[see source](crystal)
### D
* DMD64 D Compiler v2.100.0
* LDC - the LLVM D compiler (1.29.0)
* Benchmark date: 2022-07-28 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Compilation | Runtime (sec) | EXE (bytes) | stripped EXE (bytes) |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `dmd -release -O main.d` | 9.987 ± 0.045 | 993,816 | 712,504 |
| `ldc2 -release -O main.d` | 3.089 ± 0.008 | 34,584 | 23,008 |
Notes:
* the runtime is comparable to C/C++
* the official compiler `dmd` is slow
* `ldc2` is the best in this case
[see source](d)
### Dart
* Dart SDK version: 2.17.6 (stable) (Tue Jul 12 12:54:37 2022 +0200) on "linux_x64"
* Node.js v18.6.0
* Benchmark date: 2022-07-28 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Execution | Runtime (sec) | compiled / transpiled output size (bytes) | -- |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `dart main.dart` | 23.909 ± 0.581 | -- | -- |
| `dart compile js main.dart -O2 -m -o main.js && node main.js` | 10.509 ± 0.032 | 31,684 | -- |
| `dart compile exe main.dart -o main && ./main` | 8.377 ± 0.009 | 5,925,856 | -- |
(`*`): in the first case, the Dart code is executed as a script
Notes:
* If you execute it as a script (JIT), it's slow.
* If you compile to native code (AOT), it's fast (though slower than Java/C#).
* stripping damaged the EXE file
[see source](dart)
### Elixir
* Erlang/OTP 24 [erts-12.3] [source] [64-bit] [smp:8:8] [ds:8:8:10] [async-threads:1] [jit]; Elixir 1.13.2 (compiled with Erlang/OTP 24)
* Benchmark date: 2022-07-28 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Execution | Runtime (sec) | -- | -- |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `elixir main.exs` | 227.963 ± 0.543 | -- | -- |
| `elixirc munchausen.ex && elixir caller.exs` | 217.528 ± 0.762 | -- | -- |
Notes:
* Elixir doesn't excel in CPU-intensive tasks.
* In the second case, the modules were compiled to `.beam` files. However, it
didn't make the program much faster. The difference is very small.
[see source](elixir)
### FASM
* flat assembler version 1.73.30
* Benchmark date: 2022-07-28 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Compilation | Runtime (sec) | EXE (bytes) | stripped EXE (bytes) |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `# FASM x64, see v1 in Makefile` | 15.792 ± 0.018 | 532 | 532 |
| `# FASM x86, see v2 in Makefile` | 15.207 ± 0.023 | 444 | 444 |
Note: no difference between the 32-bit and 64-bit versions.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FASM for more info about FASM.
[see source](fasm)
### Forth
* gforth 0.7.3
* Benchmark date: 2025-03-02 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Execution | Runtime (sec) | -- | -- |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `gforth-fast main.fs` | 73.734 ± 0.034 | -- | -- |
[see source](forth)
### Fortran
* GNU Fortran (GCC) 12.1.0
* Benchmark date: 2022-07-28 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Compilation | Runtime (sec) | EXE (bytes) | stripped EXE (bytes) |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `gfortran -O2 main.f08 -o main` | 3.884 ± 0.054 | 21,016 | 14,456 |
Note: its speed is comparable to C.
[see source](fortran)
### Go
* go version go1.23.1 linux/amd64
* Benchmark date: 2024-10-08 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Compilation | Runtime (sec) | EXE (bytes) | stripped EXE (bytes) |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `# using int, see v1 in Makefile` | 4.122 ± 0.034 | 2,137,820 | 1,391,192 |
| `# using uint and uint32, see v2 in Makefile` | 3.5 ± 0.045 | 2,137,756 | 1,391,192 |
Notes:
* The speed is between C and Java (slower than C, faster than Java).
* Using uint and uint32, you can get better performance.
* The EXE is quite big.
[see source](go)
### Haskell
* The Glorious Glasgow Haskell Compilation System, version 8.10.7
* Benchmark date: 2022-07-28 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Compilation | Runtime (sec) | EXE (bytes) | stripped EXE (bytes) |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `# basic, see v1 in Makefile` | 93.816 ± 0.043 | 3,175,704 | 754,008 |
| `# optimized, see v2 in Makefile` | 3.517 ± 0.009 | 6,324,936 | 3,183,648 |
Notes:
* The performance of the optimized version is comparable to C.
* However, when you compile the optimized version for the first time,
the compilation is very slow.
[see source](haskell)
### Java
* openjdk version "21.0.4" 2024-07-16
* Benchmark date: 2024-10-08 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Execution | Runtime (sec) | Binary size (bytes) | -- |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `javac Main.java && java Main` | 5.003 ± 0.002 | 1,027 | -- |
(`*`): the binary size is the size of the `.class` file
Note: very good performance.
[see source](java)
### JavaScript
* Node.js v22.8.0
* Benchmark date: 2024-10-08 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Execution | Runtime (sec) | -- | -- |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `node main1.js` | 17.789 ± 0.009 | -- | -- |
| `node main2.js` | 6.819 ± 0.001 | -- | -- |
Notes:
* `main1.js` is a straightforward implementation
* `main2.js` is an improved implementation, using
a more optimal cache array size
[see source](javascript)
### Julia
* julia version 1.10.0
* Benchmark date: 2024-02-07 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Execution | Runtime (sec) | -- | -- |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `julia --startup=no main.jl` | 3.656 ± 0.006 | -- | -- |
Note: excellent performance, almost like C.
See https://julialang.org for more info about this language.
[see source](julia)
### Kotlin
* Kotlin version 2.0.20-release-360 (JRE 21.0.4+7)
* openjdk version "21.0.4" 2024-07-16
* Benchmark date: 2024-10-08 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Execution | Runtime (sec) | JAR size (bytes) | -- |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `kotlinc main.kt -include-runtime -d main.jar && java -jar main.jar` | 5.092 ± 0.004 | 4,826,841 | -- |
Note: same performance as Java.
[see source](kotlin)
### Lua
* Lua 5.4.7 Copyright (C) 1994-2024 Lua.org, PUC-Rio
* LuaJIT 2.1.1736781742 -- Copyright (C) 2005-2025 Mike Pall. https://luajit.org/
* Benchmark date: 2025-03-16 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Compilation | Runtime (sec) | -- | -- |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `lua main1.lua` | 112.412 ± 0.03 | -- | -- |
| `luajit main1.lua` | 16.854 ± 0.013 | -- | -- |
| `luajit main2_goto.lua` | 15.737 ± 0.007 | -- | -- |
Notes:
* LuaJIT is a Just-In-Time Compiler for Lua.
The language evolved and it contains an integer division operator (`//`), but LuaJIT
doesn't understand it.
* The Lua code ran much faster than the Python 3 (CPython) code.
* LuaJIT is fast. Its performance is similar to PyPy3 (even a little bit faster).
[see source](lua)
### Mojo
* mojo 24.5.0 (e8aacb95)
* Benchmark date: 2024-10-21 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Compilation | Runtime (sec) | EXE (bytes) | stripped EXE (bytes) |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `# using Int, see v1 in Makefile` | 3.844 ± 0.011 | 1,160,400 | 302,952 |
| `# using UInt32, see v2 in Makefile` | 3.125 ± 0.043 | 1,160,400 | 302,952 |
Notes:
* The execution speed of v1 is very impressive. It's like C with gcc.
* The source code is very similar to Python, though not completely identical.
* Using `UInt32` makes it even faster. v2 is one of the fastest solutions here.
See https://www.modular.com/mojo for more info about Mojo.
[see source](mojo)
### NASM
* NASM version 2.15.05 compiled on Sep 24 2020
* Benchmark date: 2022-07-28 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Compilation | Runtime (sec) | EXE (bytes) | stripped EXE (bytes) |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `# NASM x86, see v2 in Makefile` | 15.19 ± 0.012 | 9,228 | 8,428 |
| `# NASM x64, see v1 in Makefile` | 15.186 ± 0.034 | 9,656 | 8,552 |
Note: no difference between the 32-bit and 64-bit versions.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netwide_Assembler for more info about NASM.
[see source](nasm)
### Nelua
* Nelua 0.2.0-dev
* Benchmark date: 2025-03-27 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Compilation | Runtime (sec) | EXE (bytes) | stripped EXE (bytes) |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `nelua main.nelua --release -o main` | 3.519 ± 0.02 | 15,704 | 14,432 |
| `nelua main.nelua --release --cc=clang -o main` | 3.215 ± 0.011 | 15,616 | 14,432 |
Notes:
* excellent performance (comparable to C/C++)
* it's faster with clang
* its syntax and semantics are similar to Lua
* see https://nelua.io for more info about this language
[see source](nelua)
### Nim Tests #1
* Nim Compiler Version 2.2.2 [Linux: amd64]
* gcc (GCC) 14.2.1 20250128
* clang version 19.1.7
* Benchmark date: 2025-03-02 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Compilation | Runtime (sec) | EXE (bytes) | stripped EXE (bytes) |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `nim c -d:release main.nim` | 3.773 ± 0.017 | 73,696 | 63,936 |
| `nim c --cc:clang -d:release main.nim` | 3.645 ± 0.014 | 57,440 | 47,608 |
| `nim c --cc:clang -d:danger main.nim` | 3.41 ± 0.021 | 42,808 | 35,152 |
| `nim c -d:danger main.nim` | 3.098 ± 0.022 | 54,808 | 47,328 |
(`*`): if `--cc:clang` is missing, then the default `gcc` was used
Notes:
* excellent performance, comparable to C
* danger mode gave some performance boost
* In release mode, there isn't much difference between gcc and clang.
* In danger mode, gcc performs better.
[see source](nim)
### Nim Tests #2
* Nim Compiler Version 2.2.2 [Linux: amd64]
* gcc (GCC) 14.2.1 20250128
* clang version 19.1.7
* Benchmark date: 2025-03-02 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Compilation | Runtime (sec) | EXE (bytes) | stripped EXE (bytes) |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `# using int32, see v3 in Makefile` | 3.728 ± 0.02 | 57,440 | 47,608 |
| `# using int64, see v2 in Makefile` | 3.644 ± 0.023 | 57,440 | 47,608 |
| `# using int, see v1 in Makefile` | 3.623 ± 0.001 | 57,440 | 47,608 |
| `# using uint64, see v5 in Makefile` | 3.427 ± 0.033 | 57,496 | 47,608 |
| `# using uint32, see v4 in Makefile` | 3.248 ± 0.026 | 57,496 | 47,608 |
Here, we used the compiler options `--cc:clang -d:release`
everywhere and tested the different integer data types.
Notes:
* In Nim, the size of `int` is platform-dependent, i.e. it's 64-bit long on
a 64 bit system. Thus, on a 64 bit system, there is no difference between
using int and int64 (that is, v1 and v2 are equivalent).
* There's a small difference between int / int64 (signed) and uint64 (unsigned).
uint64 is a bit faster.
* int32 (v3) was slower than int64, and uint32 (v4) was faster than uint64 (v5)
* To sum up: you can use int, but if you need some performance gain, try uint32 too.
Avoid int32.
[see source](nim2)
### OCaml
* ocamlopt 5.1.0
* Benchmark date: 2024-02-05 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Compilation | Runtime (sec) | EXE (bytes) | stripped EXE (bytes) |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `ocamlopt -unsafe -O3 -o main -rounds 10 main.ml` | 8.18 ± 0.001 | 1,086,200 | 902,232 |
[see source](ocaml)
### Odin
* odin version dev-2024-10-nightly
* Benchmark date: 2024-10-13 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Compilation | Runtime (sec) | EXE (bytes) | stripped EXE (bytes) |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `odin build . -no-bounds-check -disable-assert -o:speed` | 3.536 ± 0.338 | 151,704 | 145,616 |
See https://odin-lang.org for more info about this language.
Notes:
* Very good performance, comparable to C.
* A previous version (2022) was slower, so Odin has improved a lot.
[see source](odin)
### Pascal
* Free Pascal Compiler version 3.2.2-r0d122c49 [2025/01/02] for x86_64
* Benchmark date: 2025-01-11 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Compilation | Runtime (sec) | EXE (bytes) | stripped EXE (bytes) |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `# see v1 in Makefile` | 17.391 ± 0.009 | 531,056 | 531,056 |
| `# see v2 in Makefile` | 5.828 ± 0.024 | 531,056 | 531,056 |
Notes:
* Using signed integer (`LongInt` in v1) is a bit slower than using unsigned integer (`UInt32` in v2).
* With `UInt32`, `DivMod()` is slow. Using separate `div` and `mod` operations gives better results.
* However, with `LongInt`, it's the opposite. `DivMod()` is a better choice here.
* Strangely, `strip` didn't make the EXE any smaller.
[see source](pascal)
### Perl
* This is perl 5, version 38, subversion 1 (v5.38.1) built for x86_64-linux-thread-multi
* Benchmark date: 2024-02-05 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Execution | Runtime (sec) | -- | -- |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `perl main.pl` | 494.71 ± 4.649 | -- | -- |
| `perl -Minteger main.pl` | 423.805 ± 2.471 | -- | -- |
[see source](perl)
Notes:
* This is the slowest solution. It's even slower than Python.
### PHP
* PHP 8.4.4 (cli) (built: Feb 11 2025 18:24:50) (NTS)
* Benchmark date: 2025-03-16 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Execution | Runtime (sec) | -- | -- |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `php main.php` | 133.232 ± 0.113 | -- | -- |
[see source](php)
Notes:
* Faster than Python 3
### Python 3
* Python 3.13.1
* Python 3.10.14 (39dc8d3c85a7, Aug 30 2024, 08:27:45) [PyPy 7.3.17 with GCC 14.2.1 20240805]
* Benchmark date: 2025-02-07 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Execution | Runtime (sec) | -- | -- |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `python3 main.py` | 313.333 ± 8.03 | -- | -- |
| `pypy3 main.py` | 19.911 ± 0.054 | -- | -- |
Notes:
* Python 3.12 was 257 seconds. Version 3.13 got 56 seconds slower.
It seems Python 3 gets slower with every new version :(
* Python 3.11 was 233 seconds. Version 3.12 got 20+ seconds slower.
* PyPy3 is fast and comparable to LuaJIT
[see source](python3)
### Python 3 with mypyc
* Python 3.10.5
* mypy 0.971 (compiled: no)
* Benchmark date: 2022-08-12 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Execution | Runtime (sec) | .so (bytes) | stripped .so (bytes) |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `mypyc main.py && ./start_v3.sh` | 80.481 ± 0.574 | 183,992 | 92,824 |
Notes:
* `mypyc` can compile a module. This way, the program can be 4 to 5 times faster.
[see source](python3_with_mypyc)
### Python 3 with Nim
* Python 3.10.5
* Nim Compiler Version 1.6.6 [Linux: amd64]
* Benchmark date: 2022-08-13 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Execution | Runtime (sec) | -- | -- |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `./start_v1.sh` | 46.772 ± 0.203 | -- | -- |
Notes:
* When you start it for the first time, it'll compile the Nim code
as a shared library. Thus the first run may be slower.
* The real work is done in Nim. The Nim code is compiled as a shared library.
The Python code just calls a function implemented in Nim.
[see source](python3_with_nim)
### Python 3 with Numba
* Python 3.11.6
* numba 0.58.1
* numpy 1.26.3
* Benchmark date: 2024-02-07 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Execution | Runtime (sec) | -- | -- |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `python3 main.py` | 5.526 ± 0.435 | -- | -- |
Notes:
* Numba is an open source JIT compiler that translates a subset of Python and NumPy code into fast machine code. More info here: https://numba.pydata.org
* The performance is excellent (similar to Java's).
* Almost equivalent to the original Python 3 source code.
* This implementation uses a numpy array for the cache.
[see source](python3_with_numba)
### Racket
* Welcome to Racket v8.15 [cs].
* Benchmark date: 2025-03-16 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Execution | Runtime (sec) | -- | -- |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `racket main1.rkt` | 107.486 ± 0.5 | -- | -- |
| `racket main2.rkt` | 43.847 ± 1.932 | -- | -- |
See https://racket-lang.org for more info about this language.
Notes:
* `main1.js` is a straightforward implementation
* `main2.js` is an improved implementation that uses type-specific procedures
[see source](racket)
### Ruby
* ruby 3.0.4p208 (2022-04-12 revision 3fa771dded) [x86_64-linux]
* Benchmark date: 2022-07-30 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Execution | Runtime (sec) | -- | -- |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `ruby main.rb` | 199.632 ± 3.2 | -- | -- |
| `ruby --jit main.rb` | 75.863 ± 1.174 | -- | -- |
Notes:
* much faster than Python 3
* When run in JIT mode, the performance is the same as Python's
mypyc variant (where mypyc compiles a module).
* PyPy3 is 3-4 times faster than the JIT mode.
[see source](ruby)
### Rust
* rustc 1.62.1 (e092d0b6b 2022-07-16)
* Benchmark date: 2022-07-28 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Compilation | Runtime (sec) | EXE (bytes) | stripped EXE (bytes) |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `cargo build --release` | 2.936 ± 0.078 | 3,839,048 | 317,752 |
Notes:
* excellent performance (comparable to C/C++)
* The EXE is very big (almost 4 MB). However, if you strip the EXE,
the size becomes acceptable.
[see source](rust)
### Scala 3
* Scala compiler version 3.6.0 -- Copyright 2002-2024, LAMP/EPFL
* openjdk version "21.0.4" 2024-07-16
* Benchmark date: 2024-10-20 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Execution | Runtime (sec) | JAR size (bytes) | -- |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `scalac main.scala -d main.jar && scala main.jar` | 5.378 ± 0.015 | 5,782 | -- |
Notes:
* a bit slower than Java, a bit faster than C# (.NET 8)
* same performance as Clojure
[see source](scala3)
### Scheme
* chez 9.5.8
* guile (GNU Guile) 2.2.7
* gambitc v4.9.4
* stalin 0.11
* Benchmark date: 2022-09-18 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Execution | Runtime (sec) | EXE (bytes) | -- |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `guile -s main.scm` | 148.423 ± 1.773 | -- | -- |
| `chez --compile-imported-libraries --optimize-level 3 -q --script main.scm` | 69.826 ± 0.387 | -- | -- |
| `gambitc -:debug=pqQ0 -exe -cc-options '-O3' main.scm && ./main` | 21.718 ± 0.229 | 9,098,392 | -- |
| `stalin -architecture amd64 -s -On -Ot -Ob -Om -Or -dC -dH -dP\ && ./main` | 4.599 ± 0.017 | 25,472 | -- |
| `stalin -architecture amd64 -s -On -Ot -Ob -Om -Or -dC -dH -dP\ && ./main` | 4.012 ± 0.014 | 25,512 | -- |
Note: stalin's performance is close to C.
[see source](scheme)
### Swift
* Swift version 5.9.2 (swift-5.9.2-RELEASE)
* Benchmark date: 2024-02-05 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Compilation | Runtime (sec) | EXE (bytes) | stripped EXE (bytes) |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `swiftc -Ounchecked main.swift` | 3.335 ± 0.004 | 15,832 | 11,984 |
Note: the performance is similar to C++.
[see source](swift)
### Toit
* Toit version: v2.0.0-alpha.74
* Benchmark date: 2023-04-02 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Execution | Runtime (sec) | EXE (bytes) | -- |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `toit.run main.toit` | 120.263 ± 0.069 | -- | -- |
| `toit.compile -O2 -o main main.toit && ./main` | 118.63 ± 0.774 | 1,254,784 | 1,254,784 |
Notes:
* The runtime of `toit.run` and `toit.compile` is the same. I'm not sure,
but I think `toit.run` compiles to a temp. folder and starts the program from there.
* `toit.compile` must produce a stripped EXE. Stripping the EXE explicitly didn't change
the file size.
* see https://toitlang.org for more info about this language
[see source](toit)
### V
* V 0.3.0 82db1e4
* Benchmark date: 2022-07-28 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Compilation | Runtime (sec) | EXE (bytes) | stripped EXE (bytes) |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `v -prod main.v` | 4.056 ± 0.004 | 209,392 | 187,728 |
| `v -cc clang -prod main.v` | 3.936 ± 0.018 | 212,720 | 191,736 |
By default, it uses GCC.
Notes:
* its speed is comparable to C
* see https://vlang.io for more info about this language
[see source](v)
### Zig
* zig 0.11.0
* Benchmark date: 2024-02-07 [yyyy-mm-dd]
| Compilation | Runtime (sec) | EXE (bytes) | stripped EXE (bytes) |
|-----|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| `zig build-exe -OReleaseFast src/main.zig` | 2.975 ± 0.037 | 1,721,168 | 170,968 |
Notes:
* excellent performance (comparable to C/C++)
* see https://ziglang.org for more info about this language
[see source](zig)