[saurik]

Oh, I absolutely understand why it is interesting and fast: what I don't understand is how it satisfies the rules, as it is effectively "some random project with a hashtable". Is this particular one so famous that it should be allowed instead of java.util.HashMap? Can I just publish my C++ hashtable and then rely on it, in which case the rule makes no sense? That's why I tack on "?!".

[igouy]

> instead of java.util.HashMap

Not "instead of" as-well-as.

[saurik]

This entire subthread is clearly a digression ;p, but why do you say that? The rules were about using a built-in or standard collection: this Java implementation does not use HashMap and instead uses a random project with a better data structure for this use case. This is a loophole to bypass the restriction on writing your own hashtable: you just have to publish it first? ;P

[igouy]

Java #6 => HashMap

http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/program.php?tes...

Java #3 => HashMap

http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/program.php?tes...

Java #5 => HashMap

http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/program.php?tes...

Java #4 => HashMap

http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/program.php?tes...

[saurik]

Those are different implementations; I know those exist, and which is why I had specifically said there were multiple implementations and pointed at the "faster one", which is obviously the one most people are going to be paying attention to, and which is the one that is also most relevant as we could and probably should expect the implementations for other languages to use some crazy one-off library: it demonstrates and undermines the limitations placed on the various languages seem arbitrary enough that you can't read into these results as being indicative of the languages themselves, but simultaneously that we shouldn't even care as the fast Java entry effectively "cheated".

I am going to take a step back: you seem irked by my comments, due to the knee-jerk link to have me contribute a different implementation for C++ as well as arguing with the short reply what I really maintain is a nearly-offtopic point about the Java library in question here (both of which I am reading as slightly aggressive towards me or my comment).

Do you really like this benchmark? Are you super excited that Rust is slightly faster right now than C/C++/Java? What is going through your head when you read my comments? Do you disagree that we should expect all native-ish languages to do equally-enough well for most people given these constraints? Is it that my comment is coming off to you as "no fun allowed", as I am trying to point out that this is a meaningless competition that mostly teaches us about different things than "who is winning"?

In fact, looking at your recent comment history, I am realizing you are being super aggressive about this with everyone, and are nigh unto spamming the play.html link to everyone who tries to comment about the high-level idea of "what are we doing here". What's up?

[igouy]

> I know those exist…

So you knew why I said -- Not "instead of" as-well-as.

> … knee-jerk link to have me contribute a different implementation for C++ …

Improved programs are welcome, period. Hence the link.

> What is going through your head when you read my comments?

Will this sentence never end :-)

> … mostly teaches us about different things than "who is winning"? … the high-level idea of "what are we doing here".

There are links on the home page which provide context.

[kibwen]

> What's up?

igouy is the maintainer of the benchmarks game.