peterxiao / speedtests

comparing the execution speeds of various programming languages

Speed Tests

When I learn a new programming language, I always implement the Münchausen numbers problem in the given language. The problem is simple but it includes a lot of computations, thus it gives an idea of the execution speed of a language.

Münchausen numbers

A Münchausen number is a number equal to the sum of its digits raised to each digit's power.

For instance, 3435 is a Münchausen number because 3³+4⁴+3³+5⁵ = 3435.

0⁰ is not well-defined, thus we'll consider 0⁰=0. In this case there are four Münchausen numbers: 0, 1, 3435, and 438579088.

Exercise

Write a program that finds all the Münchausen numbers. We know that the largest Münchausen number is less than 440 million.

Updates

Dates are in yyyy-mm-dd format.

2023-04-02: Toit and Codon were added.

2022-09-15: Scheme was added.

Implementations

In the implementations I tried to use the same (simple) algorithm in order to make the comparisons as fair as possible.

All the tests were run on my home desktop machine (Intel Core i7-4771 CPU @ 3.50GHz with 8 CPU cores) using Manjaro Linux. Execution times are wall-clock times and they are measured with hyperfine (warmup runs: 2, benchmarked runs: 3).

The following implementations were received in the form of pull requests:

• Common LISP, Crystal, D, FASM, Fortran, Haskell, JavaScript, Lua, NASM, Pascal, Racket, Ruby, Scheme, Toit, V, Zig

Thanks for the contributions!

If you know how to make something faster, let me know!

Languages are listed in alphabetical order.

The size of the EXE files can be further reduced with the command strip -s. If it's applicable, then the stripped EXE size is also shown in the table.

C

• gcc (GCC) 12.1.0
• clang version 14.0.6
• Benchmark date: 2022-07-28 [yyyy-mm-dd]

Compilation	Runtime (sec)	EXE (bytes)	stripped EXE (bytes)
gcc -O2 main.c -o main -lm	3.81 ± 0.005	20,680	14,416
clang -O2 main.c -o main -lm	2.629 ± 0.004	20,640	14,416

Notes:

• The switches -O3 and -Ofast gave the same result as -O2, so they were removed from the table.
• clang is better in this case

see source

C#

• 7.0.102
• Benchmark date: 2023-02-06 [yyyy-mm-dd]

Compilation	Runtime (sec)	EXE (bytes)	--
dotnet publish -o dist -c Release	5.873 ± 0.007	77,264	--

Note: it's one second slower than Java.

see source

C++

• g++ (GCC) 12.1.0
• clang version 14.0.6
• Benchmark date: 2022-07-28 [yyyy-mm-dd]

Compilation	Runtime (sec)	EXE (bytes)	stripped EXE (bytes)
g++ -O2 --std=gnu++2a main.cpp -o main	3.864 ± 0.014	21,256	14,456
clang++ -O2 --std=c++2a main.cpp -o main	3.449 ± 0.001	21,200	14,456

Notes: clang is a bit better in this case.

see source

Codon

• codon 0.15.5
• Benchmark date: 2023-04-02 [yyyy-mm-dd]

Compilation	Runtime (sec)	EXE (bytes)	stripped EXE (bytes)
codon build -release main.py	5.369 ± 0.006	28,400	26,864

Notes:

• Codon is a high-performance Python compiler that compiles Python code to native machine code without any runtime overhead.
• It's a bit faster than C#!
• The code is unchanged Python code. No type annotations are needed.

See https://github.com/exaloop/codon for more information about this compiler.

see source

Common LISP

• GNU CLISP 2.49.93+ (2018-02-18) (built on arojas [135.181.138.48])
• SBCL 2.2.5
• Benchmark date: 2022-09-02 [yyyy-mm-dd]

Execution	Runtime (sec)	--	--
clisp -C main.cl	321.049 ± 0.484	--	--
sbcl --script main.cl	6.828 ± 0.003	--	--

Notes:

• clisp is very slow. Almost as slow as Python. And without the -C switch, it's ten times slower.
• With sbcl, you can get excellent performance.

see source

Crystal

• Crystal 1.5.0 (2022-07-21); LLVM: 14.0.6; Default target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
• Benchmark date: 2022-07-30 [yyyy-mm-dd]

Compilation	Runtime (sec)	EXE (bytes)	stripped EXE (bytes)
crystal build --release main.cr	3.624 ± 0.01	626,368	215,968

Notes:

• The runtime is excellent, comparable to C.
• The source code is almost identical to the Ruby source code.
• The build time in release mode is very slow. It was 12.8 seconds on my machine.

See https://crystal-lang.org for more info about this language.

see source

D

• DMD64 D Compiler v2.100.0
• LDC - the LLVM D compiler (1.29.0)
• Benchmark date: 2022-07-28 [yyyy-mm-dd]

Compilation	Runtime (sec)	EXE (bytes)	stripped EXE (bytes)
dmd -release -O main.d	9.987 ± 0.045	993,816	712,504
ldc2 -release -O main.d	3.089 ± 0.008	34,584	23,008

Notes:

• the runtime is comparable to C/C++
• the official compiler dmd is slow
• ldc2 is the best in this case

see source

Dart

• Dart SDK version: 2.17.6 (stable) (Tue Jul 12 12:54:37 2022 +0200) on "linux_x64"
• Node.js v18.6.0
• Benchmark date: 2022-07-28 [yyyy-mm-dd]

Execution	Runtime (sec)	compiled / transpiled output size (bytes)	--
dart main.dart	23.909 ± 0.581	--	--
dart compile js main.dart -O2 -m -o main.js && node main.js	10.509 ± 0.032	31,684	--
dart compile exe main.dart -o main && ./main	8.377 ± 0.009	5,925,856	--

(*): in the first case, the Dart code is executed as a script

Notes:

• If you execute it as a script (JIT), it's slow.
• If you compile to native code (AOT), it's fast (though slower than Java/C#).
• stripping damaged the EXE file

see source

Elixir

• Erlang/OTP 24 [erts-12.3] [source] [64-bit] [smp:8:8] [ds:8:8:10] [async-threads:1] [jit]; Elixir 1.13.2 (compiled with Erlang/OTP 24)
• Benchmark date: 2022-07-28 [yyyy-mm-dd]

Execution	Runtime (sec)	--	--
elixir main.exs	227.963 ± 0.543	--	--
elixirc munchausen.ex && elixir caller.exs	217.528 ± 0.762	--	--

Notes:

• Elixir doesn't excel in CPU-intensive tasks.
• In the second case, the modules were compiled to .beam files. However, it didn't make the program much faster. The difference is very small.

see source

FASM

• flat assembler version 1.73.30
• Benchmark date: 2022-07-28 [yyyy-mm-dd]

Compilation	Runtime (sec)	EXE (bytes)	stripped EXE (bytes)
# FASM x64, see v1 in Makefile	15.792 ± 0.018	532	532
# FASM x86, see v2 in Makefile	15.207 ± 0.023	444	444

Note: no difference between the 32-bit and 64-bit versions.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FASM for more info about FASM.

see source

Fortran

• GNU Fortran (GCC) 12.1.0
• Benchmark date: 2022-07-28 [yyyy-mm-dd]

Compilation	Runtime (sec)	EXE (bytes)	stripped EXE (bytes)
gfortran -O2 main.f08 -o main	3.884 ± 0.054	21,016	14,456

Note: its speed is comparable to C.

see source

Go

• go version go1.20 linux/amd64
• Benchmark date: 2023-02-04 [yyyy-mm-dd]

Compilation	Runtime (sec)	EXE (bytes)	stripped EXE (bytes)
go build -o main	4.366 ± 0.11	1,852,075	1,229,976

Notes:

• The speed is between C and Java (slower than C, faster than Java)
• The EXE is quite big (1.8 MB).

see source

Haskell

• The Glorious Glasgow Haskell Compilation System, version 8.10.7
• Benchmark date: 2022-07-28 [yyyy-mm-dd]

Compilation	Runtime (sec)	EXE (bytes)	stripped EXE (bytes)
# basic, see v1 in Makefile	93.816 ± 0.043	3,175,704	754,008
# optimized, see v2 in Makefile	3.517 ± 0.009	6,324,936	3,183,648

Notes:

• The performance of the optimized version is comparable to C.
• However, when you compile the optimized version for the first time, the compilation is very slow.

see source

Java

• openjdk version "11.0.15" 2022-04-19
• Benchmark date: 2022-07-28 [yyyy-mm-dd]

Execution	Runtime (sec)	Binary size (bytes)	--
javac Main.java && java Main	5.099 ± 0.018	1,027	--

(*): the binary size is the size of the .class file

Note: very good performance.

see source

JavaScript

• Node.js v18.6.0
• Benchmark date: 2022-07-28 [yyyy-mm-dd]

Execution	Runtime (sec)	--	--
node main.js	17.731 ± 0.015	--	--

see source

Julia

• julia version 1.7.3
• Benchmark date: 2022-07-28 [yyyy-mm-dd]

Execution	Runtime (sec)	--	--
julia --startup=no main.jl	3.649 ± 0.009	--	--

Note: excellent performance, almost like C.

See https://julialang.org for more info about this language.

see source

Kotlin

• Kotlin version 1.6.20-release-275 (JRE 11.0.15+10)
• openjdk version "11.0.15" 2022-04-19
• Benchmark date: 2022-07-28 [yyyy-mm-dd]

Execution	Runtime (sec)	JAR size (bytes)	--
kotlinc main.kt -include-runtime -d main.jar && java -jar main.jar	4.905 ± 0.011	4,588,993	--

Note: same performance as Java.

see source

Lua

• Lua 5.4.4 Copyright (C) 1994-2022 Lua.org, PUC-Rio
• LuaJIT 2.1.0-beta3 -- Copyright (C) 2005-2022 Mike Pall. https://luajit.org/
• Benchmark date: 2022-07-28 [yyyy-mm-dd]

Compilation	Runtime (sec)	--	--
lua main.lua	118.23 ± 1.834	--	--
luajit main.lua	19.694 ± 0.009	--	--

Notes:

• LuaJIT is a Just-In-Time Compiler for Lua. The language evolved and it contains an integer division operator (//), but LuaJIT doesn't understand it.
• The Lua code ran much faster than the Python 3 (CPython) code.
• LuaJIT is fast. Its performance is similar to PyPy3 (even a little bit faster).

see source

NASM

• NASM version 2.15.05 compiled on Sep 24 2020
• Benchmark date: 2022-07-28 [yyyy-mm-dd]

Compilation	Runtime (sec)	EXE (bytes)	stripped EXE (bytes)
# NASM x86, see v2 in Makefile	15.19 ± 0.012	9,228	8,428
# NASM x64, see v1 in Makefile	15.186 ± 0.034	9,656	8,552

Note: no difference between the 32-bit and 64-bit versions.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netwide_Assembler for more info about NASM.

see source

Nim Tests #1

• Nim Compiler Version 1.6.6 [Linux: amd64]
• gcc (GCC) 12.1.0
• clang version 14.0.6
• Benchmark date: 2022-07-28 [yyyy-mm-dd]

Compilation	Runtime (sec)	EXE (bytes)	stripped EXE (bytes)
nim c -d:release main.nim	4.638 ± 0.006	96,904	80,152
nim c -d:release --gc:orc main.nim	4.155 ± 0.049	73,000	59,568
nim c -d:release --gc:arc main.nim	4.124 ± 0.013	59,776	47,272
nim c --cc:clang -d:release main.nim	3.848 ± 0.006	80,608	63,752
nim c -d:danger --gc:orc main.nim	3.731 ± 0.01	59,120	47,280
nim c -d:danger --gc:arc main.nim	3.73 ± 0.008	50,120	39,080
nim c -d:danger main.nim	3.689 ± 0.002	91,656	76,056
nim c --cc:clang -d:release --gc:orc main.nim	3.611 ± 0.005	60,936	47,296
nim c --cc:clang -d:release --gc:arc main.nim	3.607 ± 0.004	51,712	39,096
nim c --cc:clang -d:danger --gc:orc main.nim	3.355 ± 0.011	46,968	35,008
nim c --cc:clang -d:danger --gc:arc main.nim	3.347 ± 0.001	42,104	30,904
nim c --cc:clang -d:danger main.nim	3.261 ± 0.006	67,144	51,464

(*): if --cc:clang is missing, then the default gcc was used

Notes:

• excellent performance, comparable to C
• in this case, clang gave better results than gcc
• danger mode gave a very little performance boost (with clang)
• The new garbage collectors (ARC and ORC) perform better than the default garbage collector (with clang). The difference between ARC and ORC is very little. If you have cyclic references, ORC is the suggested garbage collector. Since the difference is so small, and ORC is more general, maybe it's better to use ORC.
• To sum up, --cc:clang -d:release --gc:orc seems safe and fast.

see source

Nim Tests #2

• Nim Compiler Version 1.6.6 [Linux: amd64]
• gcc (GCC) 12.1.0
• clang version 14.0.6
• Benchmark date: 2022-07-28 [yyyy-mm-dd]

Compilation	Runtime (sec)	EXE (bytes)	stripped EXE (bytes)
# using int32, see v3 in Makefile	3.759 ± 0.003	60,936	47,296
# using int64, see v2 in Makefile	3.644 ± 0.03	60,936	47,296
# using int, see v1 in Makefile	3.639 ± 0.021	60,936	47,296
# using uint64, see v5 in Makefile	3.581 ± 0.013	60,984	47,296
# using uint32, see v4 in Makefile	3.065 ± 0.028	60,984	47,296

Here, we used the compiler options --cc:clang -d:release --gc:orc everywhere and tested the different integer data types.

Notes:

• In Nim, the size of int is platform-dependent, i.e. it's 64-bit long on a 64 bit system. Thus, on a 64 bit system, there is no difference between using int and int64 (that is, v1 and v2 are quivalent).
• There's almost no difference between int / int64 (signed) and uint64 (unsigned).
• int32 (v3) was slower than int64, and uint32 (v4) produced the best result

see source

Odin

• odin version dev-2022-07:98ba4bee
• Benchmark date: 2022-07-28 [yyyy-mm-dd]

Compilation	Runtime (sec)	EXE (bytes)	stripped EXE (bytes)
odin build . -no-bounds-check -disable-assert -o:speed	5.715 ± 0.007	219,792	207,624

See https://odin-lang.org for more info about this language.

Note: good performance, though a bit slower than C.

see source

Pascal

• Free Pascal Compiler version 3.2.2 [2022/03/02] for x86_64
• Benchmark date: 2022-07-28 [yyyy-mm-dd]

Compilation	Runtime (sec)	EXE (bytes)	stripped EXE (bytes)
fpc -O3 main.pas	17.454 ± 0.02	531,024	531,024

Notes:

• Three times slower than Java.
• Strangely, strip didn't make the EXE any smaller.

see source

Python 3

• Python 3.10.5
• Python 3.8.13 (4b1398fe9d76ad762155d03684c2a153d230b2ef, Apr 02 2022, 15:38:25) [PyPy 7.3.9 with GCC 11.2.0]
• Benchmark date: 2022-08-12 [yyyy-mm-dd]

Execution	Runtime (sec)	--	--
python3 main.py	333.659 ± 1.942	--	--
pypy3 main.py	21.127 ± 0.128	--	--

Notes:

• CPython was the slowest :(
• PyPy3 is fast and comparable to LuaJIT

see source

Python 3.11

• Python 3.11.0
• Benchmark date: 2022-10-27 [yyyy-mm-dd]

Execution	Runtime (sec)	--	--
python3.11 main.py	287.453 ± 5.975	--	--

Notes:

• 14% faster than Python 3.10 (strangely, 3.11 beta was 22% faster)
• More info here: https://github.com/faster-cpython/ideas/blob/main/FasterCPythonDark.pdf

see source

Python 3 with mypyc

• Python 3.10.5
• mypy 0.971 (compiled: no)
• Benchmark date: 2022-08-12 [yyyy-mm-dd]

Execution	Runtime (sec)	.so (bytes)	stripped .so (bytes)
mypyc main.py && ./start_v3.sh	80.481 ± 0.574	183,992	92,824

Notes:

• mypyc can compile a module. This way, the program can be 4 to 5 times faster.

see source

Python 3 with Nim

• Python 3.10.5
• Nim Compiler Version 1.6.6 [Linux: amd64]
• Benchmark date: 2022-08-13 [yyyy-mm-dd]

Execution	Runtime (sec)	--	--
./start_v1.sh	46.772 ± 0.203	--	--

Notes:

• When you start it for the first time, it'll compile the Nim code as a shared library. Thus the first run may be slower.
• The real work is done in Nim. The Nim code is compiled as a shared library. The Python code just calls a function implemented in Nim.

see source

Python 3 with Rust

• Python 3.10.5
• rustc 1.62.1 (e092d0b6b 2022-07-16)
• Benchmark date: 2022-08-12 [yyyy-mm-dd]

Compilation	Runtime (sec)	--	--
# see v1 in Makefile && ./start_v1.sh	40.263 ± 1.152	--	--

Notes:

• The real work is done in Rust. The Rust code is compiled as a shared library. The Python code just calls a function implemented in Rust.
• The Rust code uses pyo3. Compilation is done with maturin.

see source

Racket

• Welcome to Racket v8.5 [cs].
• Benchmark date: 2022-07-28 [yyyy-mm-dd]

Execution	Runtime (sec)	--	--
racket main.rkt	105.218 ± 0.312	--	--

See https://racket-lang.org for more info about this language.

see source

Ruby

• ruby 3.0.4p208 (2022-04-12 revision 3fa771dded) [x86_64-linux]
• Benchmark date: 2022-07-30 [yyyy-mm-dd]

Execution	Runtime (sec)	--	--
ruby main.rb	199.632 ± 3.2	--	--
ruby --jit main.rb	75.863 ± 1.174	--	--

Notes:

• much faster than Python 3.10
• When run in JIT mode, the performance is the same as Python's mypyc variant (where mypyc compiles a module).
• PyPy3 is 3-4 times faster than the JIT mode.

see source

Rust

• rustc 1.62.1 (e092d0b6b 2022-07-16)
• Benchmark date: 2022-07-28 [yyyy-mm-dd]

Compilation	Runtime (sec)	EXE (bytes)	stripped EXE (bytes)
cargo build --release	2.936 ± 0.078	3,839,048	317,752

Notes:

• excellent performance (comparable to C/C++)
• The EXE is very big (almost 4 MB). However, if you strip the EXE, the size becomes acceptable.

see source

Scheme

• chez 9.5.8
• guile (GNU Guile) 2.2.7
• gambitc v4.9.4
• stalin 0.11
• Benchmark date: 2022-09-18 [yyyy-mm-dd]

Execution	Runtime (sec)	EXE (bytes)	--
guile -s main.scm	148.423 ± 1.773	--	--
chez --compile-imported-libraries --optimize-level 3 -q --script main.scm	69.826 ± 0.387	--	--
gambitc -:debug=pqQ0 -exe -cc-options '-O3' main.scm && ./main	21.718 ± 0.229	9,098,392	--
stalin -architecture amd64 -s -On -Ot -Ob -Om -Or -dC -dH -dP\ && ./main	4.599 ± 0.017	25,472	--
stalin -architecture amd64 -s -On -Ot -Ob -Om -Or -dC -dH -dP\ && ./main	4.012 ± 0.014	25,512	--

Note: stalin's performance is close to C.

see source

Toit

• Toit version: v2.0.0-alpha.74
• Benchmark date: 2023-04-02 [yyyy-mm-dd]

Execution	Runtime (sec)	EXE (bytes)	--
toit.run main.toit	120.263 ± 0.069	--	--
toit.compile -O2 -o main main.toit && ./main	118.63 ± 0.774	1,254,784	1,254,784

Notes:

• The runtime of toit.run and toit.compile is the same. I'm not sure, but I think toit.run compiles to a temp. folder and starts the program from there.
• toit.compile must produce a stripped EXE. Stripping the EXE explicitly didn't change the file size.

See https://toitlang.org for more info about this language.

see source

V

• V 0.3.0 82db1e4
• Benchmark date: 2022-07-28 [yyyy-mm-dd]

Compilation	Runtime (sec)	EXE (bytes)	stripped EXE (bytes)
v -prod main.v	4.056 ± 0.004	209,392	187,728
v -cc clang -prod main.v	3.936 ± 0.018	212,720	191,736

By default, it uses GCC.

Note: its speed is comparable to C.

See https://vlang.io for more info about this language.

see source

Zig

• zig 0.9.1
• Benchmark date: 2022-07-28 [yyyy-mm-dd]

Compilation	Runtime (sec)	EXE (bytes)	stripped EXE (bytes)
zig build-exe -OReleaseFast src/main.zig	3.047 ± 0.006	105,872	10,240

Notes:

• Excellent performance (comparable to C/C++).
• The size of the stripped exe is tiny, just 10 KB! If you want the smallest EXE without writing assembly, Zig is the way.

See https://ziglang.org for more info about this language.

see source