rosettaboy VS Programming-Language-Benchmark

As somebody who has written the same gameboy emulator in C++, Rust, and Zig (as well as C, Go, Nim, PHP, and Python) - I have yet to find a place where language affected emulation correctness.

Gameboy audio is kind of a pain in the ass (at least compared to CPU, which is fairly easy, and GPU, which is easy to get "good enough” if you don’t care about things like palette colours being swapped mid-scanline) - and some languages take more or less code to do the same thing (eg languages which allow one block of memory to be interpreted in several different ways concurrently will make the “interpret audio RAM as a bunch of registers” code much shorter with less copying) - but in my case at least, each one of my implementations actually has the same audio distortions, presumably because I’m misreading some part of the hardware spec :P

https://github.com/shish/rosettaboy/

(Also yes, the zig version is currently failing because every time I look at it the build system has had breaking changes...)

Niceness is subjective, but Nim is just as valid an addition to that group. Nim compiles to C and has had an --os=standalone mode for like 10 years from its git history, and as mentioned else-thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36506087) can be used for Linux kernel modules. Multiple people have written "stub OSes" in it (https://github.com/dom96/nimkernel & further along https://github.com/khaledh/axiom).

While it can use clang as a backend, Nim does not rely upon LLVM support like Zig or Rust (pre-gcc-rust working). Use on embedded devices is fairly popular: https://forum.nim-lang.org/search?q=embedded (or web search).

Latency-wise, for a time, video game programming was a perceived "adoption niche" or maybe "hook" for Nim and games often have stringent frame rendering deadlines. If you are interested in video games, you might appreciate https://github.com/shish/rosettaboy which covers all but Ada in your list with Nim being fastest (on one CPU/version/compiler/etc). Note, however, that cross-PL comparisons are often done by those with much "porting energy" but limited familiarity with any but a few of the PLs. A better way to view it is that "Nim responds well to optimization effort" (like C/Ada/C++/Rust/Zig).

https://github.com/shish/rosettaboy

The same gameboy emulator rewritten in C++, Go, Nim, PHP, Cython, Python, Rust, and Zig (and WIP typescript); mostly to teach myself the languages and to compare and contrast their idioms.

Also, when taken with a very large grain of salt, usable as a language benchmark (As with all benchmarks, there are lots of caveats - but as far as I’m aware this is unique in being “the same code in multiple languages” and “several thousand lines of code”):

  $ ./utils/bench.py

Looks very polished, but major disappointment that it's not showcasing OCaml as part of RosettaBoy (https://github.com/shish/rosettaboy)

I’m working on it :) https://github.com/shish/rosettaboy

(Ok it’s 5-10k lines rather than a million, but it’s non-trivial enough that the differences between languages are noticable)

I found Zig implementation of json parsing is interesting. The code is free from hidden control flow !.

https://github.com/hanabi1224/Programming-Language-Benchmark...

It appears helloworld is the only test with any repeats, and it only has 5 repeats. https://github.com/hanabi1224/Programming-Language-Benchmark...

Here's the measurement code, it appears to be significantly more complicated than a simple fork/exec/wait loop but that could just be all the C# getting in the way: https://github.com/hanabi1224/Programming-Language-Benchmark... Nevertheless you are probably right that the bulk of this 1.8ms is in the executable under test, and it truly is just bloat. Running `hyperfine ./empty-main-function` from rustc on my Mac gives 0.8ms.

Is faster... on code that has been optimized to hell and back 5 times over and no longer resembles anything like normal code written in the language.

Seriously, this is the code for the top program. I'm reasonably sure 99% of C++ programmers could not decipher it without spending significant amounts of time on google: https://github.com/hanabi1224/Programming-Language-Benchmark...

I appreciate that fair benchmarks across languages are a hard problem, but this is not a good solution to it. Any reference to this data as a comparison between "programming languages and compilers" needs to come with a giant disclaimer that it's comparing them at something you almost certainly don't use them for, and is very far from their main use case.

I also appreciate that this is a repetitive comment the likes of which always come up when this benchmark is mentioned... but I really don't see another way to avoid people misinterpreting it. Very few people are going to spontaneously click through to the code.