• FizzyOrange@programming.dev
        0·
        5 days ago

        Private or obscure ones I guess.

        Real-world (macro) benchmarks are at least harder to game, e.g. how long does it take to launch chrome and open Gmail? That’s actually a useful task so if you speed it up, great!

        Also these benchmarks are particularly easy to game because it’s the actual benchmark itself that gets gamed (i.e. the code for each language); not the thing you are trying to measure with the benchmark (the compilers). Usually the benchmark is fixed and it’s the targets that contort themselves to it, which is at least a little harder.

        For example some of the benchmarks for language X literally just call into C libraries to do the work.

    • Dumhuvud@programming.devEnglish
      0·
      6 days ago

      Typescript and JavaScript get different results!

      It does make sense, if you skim through the research paper (page 11). They aren’t using performance.now() or whatever the state-of-the-art in JS currently is. Their measurements include invocation of the interpreter. And parsing TS involves bigger overhead than parsing JS.

      I assume (didn’t read the whole paper, honestly DGAF) they don’t do that with compiled languages, because there’s no way the gap between compiling C and Rust or C++ is that small.