[duckerude]

That file repeated 10 times, even: https://github.com/benhoyt/countwords/blob/master/test.sh

[gibsonf1]

On x10 (no optimization yet so consing is killing performance):

firmament: 10

firmament, 10

genesis 10

version 10

Evaluation took:

  2.798 seconds of real time

  2.813069 seconds of total run time (2.677126 user, 0.135943 system)

  100.54% CPU

  8,125,595,437 processor cycles

  934,110,048 bytes consed

[Sekhmet]

It's just testing the output. For benchmark each variant is run 5 times with kjvbible.txt as input and then the lowest execution time is used as benchmark.

[gibsonf1]

In that case, unoptimized lisp for kjvbible.txt at 0.365 is 3rd fastest beating C

[coder543]

Do you have the same exact hardware that the article is using? Otherwise, we can't say one way or another on that with the data you've provided.

I'm also pretty certain the article is benchmarking against the 10x copy file for the actual benchmarks.

See this example command in the article:

    time $PROGRAM <kjvbible_x10.txt >/dev/null

So, even if you had the exact same hardware, I'm pretty sure your program would only be a bit faster than the unoptimized C# version. However, it's possible that your machine is a lot slower than what's used in the article, and your program is actually pretty fast -- but without more points of comparison, we just don't know. You haven't run the other benchmark programs on your hardware and posted the results.

[gibsonf1]

It would be interesting to have the article author run the lisp code on their machine for a real comparison - would be very interested to see the results. My machine is a Linux (Ubuntu) laptop. I just sent an email to the author with the common lisp code - we'll se if he's interested enough to check.

[dexterlemmer]

It seems like he did. (Or may be someone else's. I didn't check the repo.) Common Lisp is the second slowest on his results table.