is fantom generated bytecode as performant as java equivalent bytecode?

Question

from the many jvm languages appearing nowdays, there's one that seems to be particularly appealing

have a look at

http://fantom.org/doc/docIntro/Tour.html

I just wonder if, when ignoring the dynamic typing feature, the generated bytecode is performant equivalent to java...

ps: added aclaration about performance

Answer 1

I did some quicksort performance testing.

Int[100.000] array quicksort
  Java ~ 11ms
  Java using long and ArrayList<Long> ~ 66ms
  Fantom ~ 97 ms

Int[1.000.000] array quicksort
  Java ~ 91ms
  Java using long and ArrayList<long> ~ 815ms
  Fantom ~ 1100ms.

So I'd say that at the moment Fantom's code runs about 10x slower than Java's code. However do note that I used Java's int and Fantom's Int which aren't the same. Java's int are 32-bit and Fantom's are 64-bit.

After profiling things a bit there are indications that Fantom code is almost performant as Java. However if performance is absolutely critical, stay away from Lists, use platform specific versions of lists or drop down to native and write in Java.

EDIT: I had a talk with brian and he confirmed my suspicions. The reason Fantom is slower is because all it's Int are 64-bit integer and all Int[] arrays are similar to ArrayList<Long>. The new test show the difference. The reason Fantom is still slower is probably that its Duration, Int and List classes have a lot more methods/fields than plain ArrayList or Integer or System.currentMillis. It's a tradeoff that may or may not suit you. If you really need high performance just make a native method and program it in Java/C#/Javascript. That way you'll get Java equivalent performance.

Here are sources if you want to test it yourself:

Fantom source:

class TestQuickSort
{

   public static Void swap(Int[] a, Int i, Int j) {  
    temp := a[i];  
    a[i] = a[j];  
    a[j] = temp;  
   }  

   public static Void quicksortA(Int[] a, Int L, Int R) {  
    m := a[(L + R) / 2];  
    i := L;  
    j := R;  
    while (i <= j) {  
     while (a[i] < m)  
      i++;  
     while (a[j] > m)  
      j--;  
     if (i <= j) {  
      swap(a, i, j);  
      i++;  
      j--;  
     }  
    }  
    if (L < j)  
     quicksortA(a, L, j);  
    if (R > i)  
     quicksortA(a, i, R);  
   }  

   public static Void quicksort(Int[] a) {  
    quicksortA(a, 0, a.size - 1);  
   }   

  static Void main(Str[] args) {  

    // Sample data  
    a := Int[,]

    for(i := 0; i<1000000; i++)
    {
      a.add(i*3/2+1)
      if(i%3==0) {a[i]=-a[i]}
    }

    t1 := Duration.now 
    quicksort(a);  
    t2 := Duration.now 
    echo((t2-t1).toMillis)  

   }  
}

And java with all the Ints replaced by longs and ArrayList. Original Java implementation can be found at http://stronglytypedblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/java-vs-scala-vs-groovy-performance.html.

import java.util.ArrayList;
public class QuicksortJava {  

 public static void swap(ArrayList<Long> a, long i, long j) {  
  long temp = a.get((int)i);  
  a.set((int)i, a.get((int)j));  
  a.set((int)j, temp);  
 }  

 public static void quicksort(ArrayList<Long> a, long L, long R) {  
  long m = a.get((int)(L + R) / 2);  
  long i =  L;  
  long j =  R;  
  while (i <= j) {  
   while (a.get((int)i) < m)  
    i++;  
   while (a.get((int)j) > m)  
    j--;  
   if (i <= j) {  
    swap(a, i, j);  
    i++;  
    j--;  
   }  
  }  
  if (L < j)  
   quicksort(a, L, j);  
  if (R > i)  
   quicksort(a, i, R);  
 }  

 public static void quicksort(ArrayList<Long> a) {  
  quicksort(a, 0, a.size() - 1);  
 }  

 public static void main(String[] args) {  

  // Sample data  
  long size = 100000;
  ArrayList<Long> a = new ArrayList<Long>((int)size);  
  for (long i = 0; i < size; i++) {  
   a.add(i * 3 / 2 + 1);  
   if (i % 3 == 0)  
    a.set((int)i, -a.get((int)i));  
  }  

  long t1 = System.currentTimeMillis();  
  quicksort(a);  
  long t2 = System.currentTimeMillis();  
  System.out.println(t2 - t1);  

 }  

}