[olliej]

One question i have regarding these is how fair are the tests, a very quick look at the tests shows for "pidigits" the lua code has the line:

require"c-gmp"(g, aux)

Implying that it is using the GNU Multiprecision Library for it's big integer support, whereas the JS code has:

load('/home/dunham/shootout/bench/Include/javascript/biginteger.js');

Which is apparently a big integer library implemented in javascript http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~tjw/jsbn/

In other words, in at least one of the tests a comparison is being made between javascript and C/C++, not javascript and Lua.

[mikemike]

Actually reading the Lua mailing list post http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2010-03/msg00305.html, referenced in the linked text might help:

> For pidigits I'm comparing the pure JS and Lua programs, not the GMP bindings.

I'm comparing these two:

http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/program.php?test=pidig...

http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/program.php?test=pidig...

Both are written in pure Lua and JavaScript and do not use a C binding.

[olliej]

The numbers you point to make use of http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/program.php?test=pidig...

Which is using GMP, so maybe that particular link needs to be updated?

[olliej]

I have looked at a few of the other tests and nothing obviously pops out as being bogus, so it's likely just this pidigits test which has an unfair advantage

[tumult]

V8 is implemented in C++, so should you count it as just a really bad C++ benchmark?

The Lua benchmark uses features Lua can use. JavaScript does not have that feature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_tarpit

[olliej]

If you're claiming that your interpreter is faster than someone elses you can't make your test depend on a native library for the bulk of the work. That may be a valid argument for "my language is better" but it isn't an argument for my interpreter is faster than yours.

[tumult]

Language Shootout, not Interpreter Shootout. You're playing directly into the Turing tarpit.