Bob Nystrom
67f1480bf0
- Switch Travis CI from sudo-based apt-get to addons.apt.packages for gcc-multilib - Enable container-based builds with `sudo: false` - Update README.md call-to-action links to point to getting-started and browser playground - Replace `printList_` with `printAll` in IO class and remove redundant `IO.` prefixes - Add IO.read() method documentation and update IO.print docs for up to 16 arguments - Reorganize community page with Libraries, Language bindings, and Tools sections - Add wrenjs JavaScript binding and Sublime Text syntax highlighting - Fix typo "no where" to "nowhere" in fibers documentation - Add indentation to preprocessor defines in wren_common.h for consistency - Remove unreachable `return 0` after UNREACHABLE() in wren_compiler.c - Fix Windows color output by wrapping text in str() in test script
The benchmarks in here attempt to faithfully implement the exact same algorithm in a few different languages. We're using Lua, Python, and Ruby for comparison here because those are all in Wren's ballpark: dynamically-typed, object-oriented, bytecode-compiled.
A bit about each benchmark:
binary_trees
This benchmark stresses object creation and garbage collection. It builds a few big, deeply nested binaries and then traverses them.
fib
This is just a simple naïve Fibonacci number calculator. It was the first benchmark I wrote when Wren supported little more than function calls and arithmetic. It isn't particularly representative of real-world code, but it does stress function call and arithmetic.
for
This microbenchmark just tests the performance of for loops. Not too useful, but i used it when implementing for in Wren to make sure it wasn't too far off the mark.
method_call
This is the most useful benchmark: it tests dynamic dispatch and polymorphism. You'll note that the main iteration loop is unrolled in all of the implementations. This is to ensure that the loop overhead itself doesn't dwarf the method call time.