The truth.
All checks were successful
CI / Optimization Infrastructure Tests (push) Successful in 15s
Details
CI / Unit Tests (push) Successful in 44s
Details
CI / Integration Tests (push) Successful in 23s
Details
CI / Performance Benchmark (push) Successful in 3m24s
Details

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
retoor 2025-12-09 14:26:41 +01:00
parent 176b4a6c6b
commit aff6268ce1
1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
README.md
View File

@ -190,7 +190,7 @@ Started at 1402ms for Fibonacci(30). After optimization: 219ms. **6.4x improveme
5-run averages comparing Rava interpreter against Python 3 interpreter and Java OpenJDK (JIT compiled):
**Note:** This is not a fair fight. Java uses Just-In-Time compilation to native machine code, while Rava and Python are pure interpreters executing bytecode. The comparison shows what's achievable with interpreter optimization techniques versus full native compilation.
**Note:** Java uses Just-In-Time compilation to native machine code, while Rava and Python are pure interpreters executing bytecode. Despite this unfair advantage, Rava still manages to beat Java at string concatenation and consistently outperforms Python across most benchmarks. This demonstrates the effectiveness of Rava's interpreter optimization techniques: NaN-boxing, fast frames, method caching, superinstructions, and bounds check elimination.
| Benchmark | Rava | Python | Java | Winner | Best Speedup |
|-----------|------|--------|------|--------|--------------|