HN user
== Long-ago, Smalltalk systems could be file-copied from say win to mac to unices and would just work.
== Not standardized. Language vendors used proprietary code to lock-in customers and that fragmented the skills base. Skilled Smalltalk-A programmers were not-so-skilled with Smalltalk-B.
== Not free as in beer.
By design, the 8 year old page you linked presented Lisp measurements side-by-side against Java measurements (by excluding the other programs).
There's overlap across most of the different language implementations:
https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
Which new languages have risen to prominence outside of a niche?
The C/C++ implementations use SIMD intrinsic
Except when they don't.
https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
Huh.
The hardware changed.
The way measurements were made changed.
https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
The Java version changed.
The SBCL version changed.
side by side
You'd have to say what you mean by that.
That's someone's 8 year old mirror of the benchmarks game website.
https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
… so that, when you look at an image, or when you use it, browse the code, you can easily see what are changes and what is the base image…
You seem to be asking about something that is in documentation from 1984.
http://stephane.ducasse.free.fr/FreeBooks/TheInteractiveProg...
i am not suggesting that smalltalk needs to be changed…
Smalltalk has been changed, several times.
"With ENVY/Manager the image becomes a discardable by-product of development, secondary to the repository that stores and coordinates all work."
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Mastering_ENVY_Develope...
"The way ChangeSets are created and managed in Cuis is different from Squeak."
https://github.com/Cuis-Smalltalk/Cuis-Smalltalk-Dev/blob/ma...
fwiw "This paper has described ThingLab, a simulation laboratory."
https://worrydream.com/refs/Borning_1981_-_The_Programming_L...
People who don't know … can come to very wrong conclusions.
Always.
… website should at least explain…
Whatever the explanation, it would never be sufficient for you.
As you said -- "If you're asking what multi-lingual benchmark suites offer good coverage - I don't know."
Strange that "the software crisis" preceded Smalltalk.
So there were no problems with the technology?
So "the pride and ego" was grander than any other tech leaders?
There'll be more than one that fits the tests.
Some people notice these are tiny tiny programs which have nothing to say about servers "expected to run without issue for at least a day".
Then we can skip ahead: language implementations aren't fast, programs are fast.
And skip again: "Fastest" contributed programs, grouped by programming language implementation.
Now we've cut-through, is there anything else to be said?
… the point of a reproducible build is to verify that the binary i use, or that the package i use is based on the same source that i have.
I have been talking about how to reproduce a particular build, not how to verify.
From the same initial state, perform the same sequence of actions, implies arrive at the same final state. Reproducible.
"Retaining your old change logs gives you a record of all the changes you have made to the system. This will prove invaluable when you receive a new release of Smalltalk/V. … In short, back up the image and change log together, and you shouldn't have any problems."
page 285 Smalltalk/V 286 Tutorial and Programming Handbook 1988
if in smalltalk the image is my source
As-before it doesn't need to be.
Sorry, I'm just not interested in wading through your analogies.
If you're asking what multi-lingual benchmark suites offer good coverage - I don't know.
In which case, given: The target audience wonder "Which programming language is fastest?" :there doesn't seem to be support for your claim that: "Having more domain coverage is easier and more valuable…".
Is it better than nothing? Maybe, but not by much…
The benchmarks game: provisional and modest.
apples-to-apples
Hopefully, some of the target audience might try to confirm that programs are what they think of as "comparable".
Having more domain coverage is easier and more valuable…
So where are the examples of that being done? (It's been decades.)
My imagination has failed. I don't understand which issues you are concerned with. I think we're done.
Now, I’m leaning towards C
Maybe there are other languages?
Once upon a time, I might have imagined that would be so. Now it seems more like squeezing a lemon, there's hardly any more after the first squeeze.
https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
As long as we agree…
Close enough.
… help people get the right impression.
The target audience wonder "Which programming language is fastest?"
A table or chart sorted by elapsed time is the answer they expect.
The target audience have various (perhaps un-examined) ideas about the question.
The sources and measurements can be a way to examine and discuss some of those ideas.
it's just not good comparison of language speeds
It's not that the benchmarks game is not a good benchmark suite, it isn't a benchmark suite.
It's not that the benchmarks game is not a good comparison of language speeds, it's that comparison of "language speeds" is so under-specified as-to-be wishful thinking.
Java was designed to…
"… build software for the next generation of consumer electronics – think smart toasters, interactive TVs, and other futuristic gadgets." Things change.
… the very things that low-level languages have always been good at…
Which is why there are people who find those kind-of Java programs being in-any-way comparable, somewhat surprising.
Also, back in the day, Digitalk Smalltalk/V Win and Smalltalk/V VSE.
I'm not familiar with this paper…
It presents "DaCapo Chopin, a major release of the DaCapo benchmark suite for Java". It's a benchmark suite. It says so.
I'm not talking about what they say they are but about what they actually are
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.”
The Benchmark Game is neither.
And makes no claim to be.
Here's something that could reasonably make those claims:
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3669940.3707217
Oh! It's only Java.
It is telling the truth about how long those programs ran, period.
There seem to be people who find those brute facts surprising in themselves.
… can't upgrade the IDE without upgrading the compiler.
When packaged together IDE & compiler can't be upgraded separately (without doing the work to in-effect make separate packages).
… can't compile my own code in the image with the old version
So we could try to compile own-code' in image' with compiler', and we could try to compile own-code' in image" with compiler", but we want to try to compile own-code' in image" with compiler' ?
Not without doing the work to in-effect make separate packages. (Say we could port compiler' to image" but would that mean trying to compile compiler' with compiler".)
And now we're back to what does "traditional way of doing smalltalk development" mean because supposedly "Team/V could forward and backwards migrate versions of Smalltalk “modules” within a running virtual image."
the point of a reproducible build is that a version of source code always produces the same binary.
Scope: does "a version of source code" just mean own-code or does it mean sources+changes.
Seems like the benchmarks game didn't say that anything interesting about long running programs was measured? And didn't say that "interesting" memory management was measured. And didn't say…
I suppose when you write "because it compares different algorithms" you didn't say that there were no comparisons based on the same algorithm.
We've certainly not attempted to prove that these measurements, of a few tiny programs, are somehow representative of the performance of any real-world applications — not known — and in-any-case Benchmarks are a crock.
… you can't upgrade the IDE without upgrading the compiler.
Do you mean because the IDE and compiler are packaged together, so when you get image' it may contain changes to both?
… i can't compile my own code in the image with the old version any more.
Do you mean because the image' package has compiler' not the old version?
(Probably an abuse of kindness.)