This isn't the most compelling of benchmarks. It's still infinitely better than what most people do--the author actually measured something in a reasonable way!--but I don't think it's enough to make any interesting conclusions. I suppose it shows that there is a performance boost, which is great, but I'd really like to know where the gains really are.
Could somebody familiar with the changes to 2.10 explain where the performance boost came from and what code it will affect? Does this make Scala a more compelling choice for the discerning functional programmer?
It's incomplete reporting without the JRE heap, inlining, GC and other options used and some kind of residency and median memory usage data. Also, warmups, hardware and OS (Windows seems to frequently produce interesting results. (I haven't seen a GC testbench for java like dons' gc-tune pkg for haskell, but that would be a great tool
Comments
This isn't the most compelling of benchmarks. It's still infinitely better than what most people do--the author actually measured something in a reasonable way!--but I don't think it's enough to make any interesting conclusions. I suppose it shows that there is a performance boost, which is great, but I'd really like to know where the gains really are.
Could somebody familiar with the changes to 2.10 explain where the performance boost came from and what code it will affect? Does this make Scala a more compelling choice for the discerning functional programmer?
It's incomplete reporting without the JRE heap, inlining, GC and other options used and some kind of residency and median memory usage data. Also, warmups, hardware and OS (Windows seems to frequently produce interesting results. (I haven't seen a GC testbench for java like dons' gc-tune pkg for haskell, but that would be a great tool