World: r4wp

I'm getting strange results now: R2 actually faster than R3

This is Carl's official R3 release that I compiled for i686, so it 
probably has a compilation advantage over R2

In my older benchmarks with Carl's R3 build, R3 was a quarter faster 
than R2 (3 : 4). But I was computing Fibonacci 35 then, and now Fibonacci 
40 to have a better comparison with fast languages on fast machines

The Red interpreter takes 1.7 times as long as 2.7.8 on Fibonacci 
40

I just added char! to LOAD. It doesn't support the whole set of escaped 
sequences, only the most used once. Also, the molding of codepoints 
< 32 is not escaped yet, so you'll get strange results on screen.


I'm working on improving MOLD on string! and char!, to better support 
escaping of special characters and correct usage of {} braces when 
required.

I probably won't have time to finish file! before going to sleep, 
so you'll get it tomorrow.

The Red compiler is 3.6 times as fast as the interpreter. Red/System 
is 265 times as fast as the interpreter

(for Fibonacci test)

Fibonacci 40

Better specify it clearly each time you announce comparative performances, 
else people will generalize it and get a wrong picture of the real 
performance ratios. 


Fibonacci basically tests the efficiency of the function calls. A 
test with a bigger loop could be interesting. For example, you can 
take the %demo.red script and strip all screen outputs, add a LOOP 
around the main code and  you'll should see much bigger differences.

You know how it is with benchmarks: you can never specify it deep 
enough to prevent all caveats

So either the only specification is some salt, or you actually benchmark 
the readers to see who gets it and who doesn't

I don't know what "real" performance ratios are, but I think that 
computing Fibonacci numbers is a more real task than running the 
text console demo in a loop

I'd measure Mandelbrot performance, but Red can't do it ;-)

Kaj, good thanks for the update on the SDL problem.

I'll test later if that's it

In any case, we just bought an XP machine for testing

Great, let me know what's next that you guys need help debugging.

Paul: how can we reach you when we need some help?

Will you check AltME regularly now?

you can email me if need be at [ptretter-:-hotmail-:-com]

Great, thanks.

yeah I'll be checking much more often now.

Kaj, what matters in such benchmark is not the usefulness of the 
resulting data, it is how the test stresses the language implementation. 
From that perspective, Fibonacci just tests the efficiency of nested 
calls, nothing else, no series manipulation, no memory allocation, 
very limited math, very limited control flow, ... The demo code will 
stress more parts of the implementation, hence giving you a more 
accurate picture (closer to what user will experience with their 
own scripts).


If you take the language Shootout tests, each test is meant to stress 
a specific part of each language, giving a good (and quite fair) 
comparison for each category.


I think we should implement them in order to get a good picture of 
Red performances and how they evolve. Anyone interested in implementing 
them? http://dada.perl.it/shootout/

Yes, so Fibonacci is a good such test, isn't it?

Looks like there are rebol versions there

The Red interpreter can now actually load and run REBOL scripts, 
as long as they're compatible and they don't have a Unix shebang 
line

I could check for the shebang line in the console

Now that REDUCE is implemented, I suppose it's time for PRINT to 
reduce its argument?

Fibonacci is a good such test, isn't it?
 It is a very good test for nested calls. :-)

PRINT: yes we could enhance it, but it would need to be promoted 
as a "keyword" in the compiler (not a big deal though).

I still have work on MOLD tomorrow, I'll try to do PRINT too.

There are also some refinements for some natives that are implemented 
in the compiler and not in the interpreter (/any for SET and GET 
from top of my head, but there are probably more). I need to do a 
review to collect them and implement them before the release (probably 
on Sunday).

Are you sure PRINT can't just be a function?

Yes, it is a function, but the reduction (on literal blocks only) 
could be handled by the compiler if it's also declared as a keyword 
(in the compiler).

Function => native

So `print [1 + 2]` could be compiled efficiently by the compiler 
(calling the native with a reduced block), while `print a` will directly 
call the native version.

Would you have to do that with all functions that reduce?

Currently, REDUCE and COMPOSE are handled like that by the compiler.

They have a native common part anyway, as some parts cannot be statically 
compiled.

But REFORM etcetera?

These less used functions could be implemented as mezz only.

I'm not sure which are more performance critical

It is not mandatory to make the compiler handle it, it will just 
produce faster code, as the expressions will be statically compiled 
instead of been interpreted.

It would be good to have some benchmarks on these to see the gains 
the compiler brings (it will be vary a lot I guess).

-be

I don't see COMPOSE in the intrinsics

Shouldn't DO be an intrinsic, so it can compile literal blocks?

Right, I've removed COMPOSE as an intrinsic, the implementation was 
too complicated and wasn't better than the purely native version.

DO: it was supposed to be handled by the compiler for literal blocks, 
but as it is the main way to invoke the interpreter, I wanted it 
to be consistent whatever argument was passed.