Are-we-fast-yet implementations in Oberon, C++, C, Pascal, Micron and Luon

[rpcope1]

Micron seems like a bad naming choice...maybe it predates the manufacturer?

[Rochus]

It's the abbreviation of Micro Oberon, therefore a quite obvious naming choice; there is no real risk of confusion with commercial offers under this name; it's also a common name in science.

[oneshtein]

«The term micron and the symbol μ were officially accepted for use in isolation to denote the micrometre in 1879, but officially revoked by the International System of Units (SI) in 1967.»

[nmeofthestate]

I'd be more interested in the results, relative to the languages from the main repository.

[Rochus]

There are some results in the repository, e.g. one I published recently: https://github.com/rochus-keller/Are-we-fast-yet/blob/main/L...

Or here: https://github.com/rochus-keller/Oberon/blob/master/testcase...

The main repository only recently added a C++ implementation, but it was significantly slower than mine when I check last time (see https://github.com/smarr/are-we-fast-yet/issues/80).

I mostly use the benchmarks to check how my compilers do compared to the big ones, or how the technologies I'm interested in evolve.

[eska]

The original repo is about using a subset of a language to compare language implementations. I can see the point in that. But language benchmarks like this are incredibly useless and very easy to get wrong anyway. For example it you actually cared about performance for the bounce example you would never write it like this in C. Bouncing 100 balls in a loop 50 times with 4 ifs just tests the branch predictor. There is nothing to learn from this in practice.

[dardeaup]

I'd like to hear more about the Oberon languages and compilers used.

[Rochus]

See e.g. https://github.com/rochus-keller/Oberon or https://github.com/rochus-keller/Are-we-fast-yet/blob/main/O....