Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!hpda!hpcupt1!jamiller From: jamiller@hpcupt1.HP.COM (Jim Miller) Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel Subject: Re: Benchmark article - Eiffel vs. C++ vs. Smalltalk-80 Message-ID: <-289289996@hpcupt1.HP.COM> Date: 26 Mar 90 20:37:46 GMT References: <274@eiffel.UUCP> Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino Lines: 32 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Figure 1: Mosaic Benchmark Results > >Host Language[2] Compiler[3] Execution Time (secs)[4] Executable Size[5] >[1] User System Wall Text Data BSS >---- ----------- ----------- ---- ------ ---- ----- ---- ----- >Tek Smalltalk Tek ST-80 3600 >Tek Eiffel Greenhills 69.2 1.0 70 40960 11264 36004 >Tek C++ CC1.2/GH 55.3 1.7 57 15360 5120 34508 >Tek C++ CC1.2/gcc 54.2 1.3 56 15360 5120 34498 >Tek C++ g++ 52.9 1.3 54 20480 8192 32056 >Tek Eiffel gcc 49.9 1.4 51 39936 11264 35616 > >Sun Eiffel Sun 54.7 1.0 56 65535 8192 3872 >Sun C++ CC2.0/gcc 41.3 1.2 42 32768 8192 0 >Sun C++ g++ 40.6 0.9 41 40960 8192 0 >Sun Eiffel gcc 40.4 1.1 41 65535 8192 536 >Sun C++ CC2.0/cc 39.9 1.3 41 40960 8192 0 ... >Note that Eiffel is just as fast as C++ on the Sun and faster than C++ >on the Tektronix workstation. This seems ironic since C++ is touted as >being efficient and the mosaic program exercises features which should >be efficiently implemented in C. Wait A minute. Eiffel is faster AND slower. It's just about the BEST and the WORST on both machines. It is very interesting data, thanks. jim miller