In java they say don't concatenate Strings, instead you should make a stringbuffer and keep adding to that and then when you're all done, use toString() to get a String object out of it.
Here's what I don't get. They say do this for performance reasons, because concatenating strings makes lots of temporary objects. But if the goal was performance, then you'd use a language like C/C++ or assembly.
The argument for using java is that it is a lot cheaper to buy a faster processor than it is to pay a senior programmer to write fast efficient code.
So on the one hand, you're supposed let the hardware take care of the inefficiencies, but on the other hand, you're supposed to use stringbuffers to make java more efficient.
While I see that you can do both, use java and stringbuffers, my question is where is the flaw in the logic that you either use a faster chip or you spent extra time writing more efficient software.
Developers should understand the performance implications of their coding choices.
It's not terribly difficult to write an algorithm that results in non-linear performance - polynomial, exponential or worse. If you don't understand to some extent how the language, compiler, and libraries support your algorithm you can fall into trap that no amount of processing power will dig you out of. Algorithms whose runtime or memory usage is exponential can quickly exceed the ability of any hardware to execute in a reasonable time.
Assuming that hardware can scale to a poorly designed algorithm/coding choice is a bad idea. Take for example a loop that concatenates 100,000 small strings together (say into an XML message). This is not an uncommon situation - but when implementing using individual string concatenations (rather than a StringBuffer) this will result in 99,999 intermediate strings of increasing size that the garbage collector has to dispose of. This can easily make the operation fail if there's not enough memory - or at best just take forever to run.
Now in the above example, some Java compilers can usually (but not always) rewrite the code to use a StringBuffer behind the scenes - but this is the exception, not the rule. In many situations the compiler simply cannot infer the intent of the developer - and it becomes the developer's responsibility to write efficient code.
One last comment - writing efficient code does not mean spending all your time looking for micro-optimizations. Premature optimization is the enemy of writing good code. However, you shouldn't confuse premature optimization with understanding the O() performance of an algorithm in terms of time/storage and making good choices about which algorithm or design to use in which situation.
As a developer you cannot ignore this level of knowledge and just assume that you can always throw more hardware at it.
The argument that you should use StringBuffer rather than concatenation is an old java cargo-cult myth. The Java compiler itself will convert a series of concatenations into a single StringBuffer call, making this "optimization" completely unnecessary in source code.
Having said that, there are legitimate reasons to optimize even if you're using a "slow" bytecode or interpreted language. You don't want to deal with the bugs, instability, and longer development cycle of C/C++, so you use a language with richer capabilities. (Built-in strings, whee!) But at the same time, you want your code to run as fast as possible with that language, so you avoid obviously inefficient constructs. IOWs just because you're giving up some speed by using java doesn't mean that you should forget about performance entirely.
The difference is that StringBuffer is not at all harder or more time-consuming to use than concatenating strings. The general principle is that if it's possible to gain efficiency without increasing development time/difficulty, it should be done: your principle only applies when that's not possible.
The language being slower isn't an excuse to use a much slower algorithm (and Java isn't that slow these days).
If we concatenate a 1-character to an n-character string, we need to copy n+1 characters into the new string. If we do
string s;
for (int i = 0; i < N; ++ i)
s = s + "c";
then the running time will be O(N2).
By contrast, a string buffer maintain a mutable buffer which reduces the running time to O(N).
You cannot double the CPU to reduce a quadratic algorithm into a linear one.
(Although the optimizer may have implicitly created a StringBuffer for you already.)
Java != ineffecient code.
You do not buy a faster processor to avoid writing efficient code. A bad programmer will write bad code regardless of language. The argument that C/C++ is more efficient than Java is an old argument that does not matter anymore.
In the real world, programming languages, operating systems and developpement tools are not selected by the peoples who will actually deal with it.
Some salesman of company A have lunch with your boss to sell its operating system ... and then some other salesman invite your boss at the strippers to sell its database engine ... and so on.
Then, and only then, they hire a bunch of programmers to put all that together. They want it nice, fast and cheap.
That's why you may end up programming high end performance applications with Java on a mobile device or nice 3D graphics on Windows with Python ...
So, your right, but it doesn't matter. :)
You should always put optimizations where you can. You shouldn't be "lazy coding" just because you have a fast processor...
I don't really know how stringbuffer works, nor do i work with Java, but assuming that java defines a string as char[], you're allocating a ton of dummy strings when doing str1+str2+str3+str4+str5, where you really only need to make a string of length str1.length+...str5.length and copy everything ONCE...
However, a smart compiler would optimize and automatically use stringbuffer
Related
I’ve read that good obfuscation techniques not merely do things like replacing method names with something obscure, but also, for instance, replace strings in the source code with byte arrays and add methods to convert those back to the original strings.
This might be one of those questions leading to opinion-based answers, but I’m going to ask it anyway: Is there any general notion how much performance loss an application would suffer from in case such an obfuscation method is applied? I’ve got in mind a software that is heavily leaning on a database, i.e., queries exist in the code, for instance, as C# strings or StringBuilder entities.
Yes, string obfuscation has a significant performance impact, at the micro-level. With obfuscation, instead of a direct memory lookup you have code that has to execute (every time), and it is usually somewhat complicated, so it is necessarily much worse at the micro-performance level.
However, that cost usually doesn't matter; the time required for the database call (or showing the UI dialog, or sending the error to a log, or network traffic, or ...) is going to be orders of magnitude higher than the cost of converting the string. In most cases, the cost of the conversion is essentially invisible.
As with everything, careful testing is wise, but usually the costs are only "visible" if you are accessing obfuscated strings in a tight loop that is already CPU-performance-sensitive.
Let's say you have to implement a tool to efficiently solve an NP-hard problem, with unavoidable possible explosion of memory usage (the output size in some cases exponential to the input size) and you are particularly concerned about the performances of this tool at running time. The source code has also to be readable and understandable once the underlying theory is known, and this requirement is as important as the efficiency of the tool itself.
I personally think that 3 languages could be suitable for these three requirements: c++, scala, java.
They all provide the right abstraction on data types that makes it possible to compare different structures or apply the same algorithms (which is also important) to different data types.
C++ has the advantage of being statically compiled and optimized, and with function inlining (if the data structures and algorithms are designed carefully) and other optimisation techniques it's possible to achieve a performance close to that of pure C while maintaining a fairly good readability.
If you also put a lot of care in data representation you can optimise the cache performance, which can gain orders of magnitude in speed when the cache miss rate is low.
Java is instead JIT compiled, which allows to apply optimisations during runtime, and in this category of algorithms that could have different behaviours between different runs, that may be a plus. I fear instead that such an approach could suffer from garbage collector, however in the case of this algorithm it's common to continuously allocate memory and java heap performance is notoriously better than C/C++ and if you implement your own memory manager inside the language you could even achieve good efficiency.
This approach instead is not able to inline method invocation (which induces a huge performance penalty) and doesn't give you control over the cache performance. Among the pros there's a better and cleaner syntax than C++.
My concerns about scala are more or less the same as Java, plus the fact that I can't control how the language is optimised unless I have a deep knowledge on the compiler and the standard library. But well: I get a very clean syntax :)
What's your take on the subject? Have you had to deal with this already? Would you implement an algorithm with such properties and requirements in any of these languages or would you suggest something else? How would you compare them?
Usually I’d say “C++” in a heartbeat. The secret being that C++ simply produces less (memory) garbage that needs managing.
On the other hand, your observation that
however in the case of this algorithm it's common to continuously allocate memory
is a hint that Java / Scala may actually be more suited. But then you could use a small object heap in C++ as well. Boost has one that uses the standard allocator interface, if memory serves.
Another advantage of C++ is obviously the use of abstraction without penalty through templates – i.e. that you can easily create generic algorithmic components that can interact without incurring a runtime overhead due to abstraction. In fact, you noted that
it's possible to achieve a performance close to that of pure C while maintaining a fairly good readability
– this is looking at things the wrong way: Templates allow C++ to achieve performance superior to that of C while still maintaining high abstraction.
D might be worth a look, seeing as how it tries to be a better C++.
From a superficial glance, it has better source code readability than C++ does, so that's one of your points covered.
It also has memory management, which makes playing with algorithms a bit easier.
And templates
Here is a stackoverflow discussion comparing the performance of C++ and D
The languages you noticed were my first guesses as well.
Each language has a different take on how to handle specific issues like compilation, memory management and source code, but in theory, any of them should be fitting to your problem.
It is impossible to tell which is best, and there is likely no major difference if you are familiar enough with all of them to work around their respective quirks.
And obviously, if you actually find the need to optimize (I'm not sure if that's a given), that's possible in each language. Lower level languages obviously offer more options, but are also (far) more complex to actually improve.
A single note about C++ vs Java: This is really a holy war, and if you've followed the recent development you'll probably have your own opinion. I, for one, think Java offers enough good aspects to make up for its flaws, usually.
And a final note on C++ vs C: According to my knowledge, the difference usually amounts to a sufficiently low percentage to ignore this. It it doesn't make a difference for the source code, it's fine to go with C, if C++ could make for easier-to-read source code, go with C++. In any case, the choice is kind of negligible.
In the end, remember that money spent on a few hours of programming/optimizing this could as well go into slightly superior hardware to make up for missed tiny details.
It all boils down to: Any of your options is fine as long as you do it right (domain knowledge).
I would use a language which makes it very easy to work on the algorithm. Get the algorithm right and it could very easily outweigh any advantage from fine-tuning the wrong algorithm. Don't be scared to play around in a language normally thought of as slow in execution speed if that language makes it easier to express algorithmic ideas. It is usually much easier to transcribe the right algorithm into another language than it is to eek-out the last dregs of speed from the wrong algorithm in the fastest executing language.
So do it in a language you are comfortable with and which is expressive. You might surprise yourself and find that what is produced is fast enough!
I'm wondering about computational efficiency. I'm going to use Java in this example, but it is a general computing question. Lets say I have a string and I want to get the value of the first letter of the string, as a string. So I can do
String firstletter = String.valueOf(somestring.toCharArray()[0]);
Or I could do:
char[] stringaschar = somestring.toCharArray();
char firstchar = stringaschar[0];
String firstletter = String.valueOf(firstchar);
My question is, are the two ways essentially the same, computationally? I mean, the second way I explicitly had to create 2 intermediate variables, to be stored in memory (the stack?) temporarily.
But the first way, too, the computer will have to still create the same variables, implicitly, right? And the number of operations doesn't change. My thinking is, the two ways are the same. But I'd like to know for sure.
In most cases the two ways should produce the same, or nearly the same, object code. Optimizing compilers usually detect that the intermediate variables in the second option are not necessary to get the correct result, and will collapse the call graph accordingly.
This all depends on how your Java interpreter decides to translate your code into an intermediary language for runtime execution. It may actually have optimizations which translate the two approaches to be the same exact byte code.
The two should be essentially the same. In both cases you make the same calls converting the string to an array, finding the first character, and getting the value of the character. There may be minor differences in how the compiler handles these, but they should be insignficant.
The earlier answers are coincident and right, AFAIK.
However, I think there are a few additional and general considerations you should be aware of each time you wonder about the efficiency of any computational asset (code, for example).
First, if everything is under your strict control you could in principle count clock cycles one by one from assembly code. Or from some more abstract reasoning find the computational cost of an operation/algorithm.
So far so good. But don't forget to measure afterwards. You may find that measuring execution times is not so easy and straightforward, and sometimes is elusive (How to account for interrupts, for I/O wait, for network bottlenecks ...). But it pays. You ask here for counsel, but YOUR Compiler/Interpreter/P-code generator/Whatever could be set with just THAT switch in the third layer of your config scripts.
The other consideration, more to your current point is the existence of Black Boxes. You are not alone in the world and a Black Box is any piece used to run your code, which is essentially out of your control. Compilers, Operating Systems, Networks, Storage Systems, and the World in general fall into this category.
What we do with Black Boxes (they are black, either because their code is not public or because we just happen to use our free time fishing instead of digging library source code) is establishing mental models to help us understand how they work. (BTW, This is an extraordinary book about how we humans forge our mental models). But you should always beware that they are models, not the real thing. Models help us to explain things ... to a certain extent. Classical Mechanics reigned until Relativity and Quantum Mechanics fluorished. None of them is wrong They have limits, and so have all our models.
Even if you happen to be friend with your router OS, or your Linux kernel, when confronting an efficiency problem, design a good experiment and measure.
HTH!
NB: By design a good experiment I mean beware of the tar pits. Examples: measuring your measurement code instead the target of the experiment, being influenced by external factors, forget external factors that will influence the production code, test with data whose cardinality, orthogonality, or whatever-ality is dissimilar with the "real world", mapping wrongly the production and testing Client/server workhorses, et c, et c, et c.
So go, and meassure your code. Your results will be the most interesting thing in this page.
Its common to hear about "highly optimized code" or some developer needing to optimize theirs and whatnot. However, as a self-taught, new programmer I've never really understood what exactly do people mean when talking about such things.
Care to explain the general idea of it? Also, recommend some reading materials and really whatever you feel like saying on the matter. Feel free to rant and preach.
Optimize is a term we use lazily to mean "make something better in a certain way". We rarely "optimize" something - more, we just improve it until it meets our expectations.
Optimizations are changes we make in the hopes to optimize some part of the program. A fully optimized program usually means that the developer threw readability out the window and has recoded the algorithm in non-obvious ways to minimize "wall time". (It's not a requirement that "optimized code" be hard to read, it's just a trend.)
One can optimize for:
Memory consumption - Make a program or algorithm's runtime size smaller.
CPU consumption - Make the algorithm computationally less intensive.
Wall time - Do whatever it takes to make something faster
Readability - Instead of making your app better for the computer, you can make it easier for humans to read it.
Some common (and overly generalized) techniques to optimize code include:
Change the algorithm to improve performance characteristics. If you have an algorithm that takes O(n^2) time or space, try to replace that algorithm with one that takes O(n * log n).
To relieve memory consumption, go through the code and look for wasted memory. For example, if you have a string intensive app you can switch to using Substring References (where a reference contains a pointer to the string, plus indices to define its bounds) instead of allocating and copying memory from the original string.
To relieve CPU consumption, cache as many intermediate results if you can. For example, if you need to calculate the standard deviation of a set of data, save that single numerical result instead looping through the set each time you need to know the std dev.
I'll mostly rant with no practical advice.
Measure First. Optimization should be done to places where it matters. Highly optimized code is often difficult to maintain and a source of problems. In places where the code does not slow down execution anyway, I alwasy prefer maintainability to optimizations. Familiarize yourself with Profiling, both intrusive (instrumented) and non-intrusive (low overhead statistical). Learn to read a profiled stack, understand where the time inclusive/time exclusive is spent, why certain patterns show up and how to identify the trouble spots.
You can't fix what you cannot measure. Have your program report through some performance infrastructure the thing it does and the times it takes. I come from a Win32 background so I'm used to the Performance Counters and I'm extremely generous at sprinkling them all over my code. I even automatized the code to generate them.
And finally some words about optimizations. Most discussion about optimization I see focus on stuff any compiler will optimize for you for free. In my experience the greatest source of gains for 'highly optimized code' lies completely elsewhere: memory access. On modern architectures the CPU is idling most of the times, waiting for memory to be served into its pipelines. Between L1 and L2 cache misses, TLB misses, NUMA cross-node access and even GPF that must fetch the page from disk, the memory access pattern of a modern application is the single most important optimization one can make. I'm exaggerating slightly, of course there will be counter example work-loads that will not benefit memory access locality this techniques. But most application will. To be specific, what these techniques mean is simple: cluster your data in memory so that a single CPU can work an a tight memory range containing all it needs, no expensive referencing of memory outside your cache lines or your current page. In practice this can mean something as simple as accessing an array by rows rather than by columns.
I would recommend you read up the Alpha-Sort paper presented at the VLDB conference in 1995. This paper presented how cache sensitive algorithms designed specifically for modern CPU architectures can blow out of the water the old previous benchmarks:
We argue that modern architectures
require algorithm designers to
re-examine their use of the memory
hierarchy. AlphaSort uses clustered
data structures to get good cache
locality...
The general idea is that when you create your source tree in the compilation phase, before generating the code by parsing it, you do an additional step (optimization) where, based on certain heuristics, you collapse branches together, delete branches that aren't used or add extra nodes for temporary variables that are used multiple times.
Think of stuff like this piece of code:
a=(b+c)*3-(b+c)
which gets translated into
-
* +
+ 3 b c
b c
To a parser it would be obvious that the + node with its 2 descendants are identical, so they would be merged into a temp variable, t, and the tree would be rewritten:
-
* t
t 3
Now an even better parser would see that since t is an integer, the tree could be further simplified to:
*
t 2
and the intermediary code that you'd run your code generation step on would finally be
int t=b+c;
a=t*2;
with t marked as a register variable, which is exactly what would be written for assembly.
One final note: you can optimize for more than just run time speed. You can also optimize for memory consumption, which is the opposite. Where unrolling loops and creating temporary copies would help speed up your code, they would also use more memory, so it's a trade off on what your goal is.
Here is an example of some optimization (fixing a poorly made decision) that I did recently. Its very basic, but I hope it illustrates that good gains can be made even from simple changes, and that 'optimization' isn't magic, its just about making the best decisions to accomplish the task at hand.
In an application I was working on there were several LinkedList data structures that were being used to hold various instances of foo.
When the application was in use it was very frequently checking to see if the LinkedListed contained object X. As the ammount of X's started to grow, I noticed that the application was performing more slowly than it should have been.
I ran an profiler, and realized that each 'myList.Contains(x)' call had O(N) because the list has to iterate through each item it contains until it reaches the end or finds a match. This was definitely not efficent.
So what did I do to optimize this code? I switched most of the LinkedList datastructures to HashSets, which can do a '.Contains(X)' call in O(1)- much better.
This is a good question.
Usually the best practice is 1) just write the code to do what you need it to do, 2) then deal with performance, but only if it's an issue. If the program is "fast enough" it's not an issue.
If the program is not fast enough (like it makes you wait) then try some performance tuning. Performance tuning is not like programming. In programming, you think first and then do something. In performance tuning, thinking first is a mistake, because that is guessing.
Don't guess what to fix; diagnose what the program is doing.
Everybody knows that, but mostly they do it anyway.
It is natural to say "Could be the problem is X, Y, or Z" but only the novice acts on guesses. The pro says "but I'm probably wrong".
There are different ways to diagnose performance problems.
The simplest is just to single-step through the program at the assembly-language level, and don't take any shortcuts. That way, if the program is doing unnecessary things, then you are doing the same things, and it will become painfully obvious.
Another is to get a profiling tool, and as others say, measure, measure, measure.
Personally I don't care for measuring. I think it's a fuzzy microscope for the purpose of pinpointing performance problems. I prefer this method, and this is an example of its use.
Good luck.
ADDED: I think you will find, if you go through this exercise a few times, you will learn what coding practices tend to result in performance problems, and you will instinctively avoid them. (This is subtly different from "premature optimization", which is assuming at the beginning that you must be concerned about performance. In fact, you will probably learn, if you don't already know, that premature concern about performance can well cause the very problem it seeks to avoid.)
Optimizing a program means: make it run faster
The only way of making the program faster is making it do less:
find an algorithm that uses fewer operations (e.g. N log N instead of N^2)
avoid slow components of your machine (keep objects in cache instead of in main memory, or in main memory instead of on disk); reducing memory consumption nearly always helps!
Further rules:
In looking for optimization opportunities, adhere to the 80-20-rule: 20% of typical program code accounts for 80% of execution time.
Measure the time before and after every attempted optimization; often enough, optimizations don't.
Only optimize after the program runs correctly!
Also, there are ways to make a program appear to be faster:
separate GUI event processing from back-end tasks; priorize user-visible changes against back-end calculation to keep the front-end "snappy"
give the user something to read while performing long operations (every noticed the slideshows displayed by installers?)
However, as a self-taught, new programmer I've never really understood what exactly do people mean when talking about such things.
Let me share a secret with you: nobody does. There are certain areas where we know mathematically what is and isn't slow. But for the most part, performance is too complicated to be able to understand. If you speed up one part of your code, there's a good possibility you're slowing down another.
Therefore, anyone who tells you that one method is faster than another, there's a good possibility they're just guessing unless one of three things are true:
They have data
They're choosing an algorithm that they know is faster mathematically.
They're choosing a data structure that they know is faster mathematically.
Optimization means trying to improve computer programs for such things as speed. The question is very broad, because optimization can involve compilers improving programs for speed, or human beings doing the same.
I suggest you read a bit of theory first (from books, or Google for lecture slides):
Data structures and algorithms - what the O() notation is, how to calculate it,
what datastructures and algorithms can be used to lower the O-complexity
Book: Introduction to Algorithms by Thomas H. Cormen, Charles E. Leiserson, and Ronald L. Rivest
Compilers and assembly - how code is translated to machine instructions
Computer architecture - how the CPU, RAM, Cache, Branch predictions, out of order execution ... work
Operating systems - kernel mode, user mode, scheduling processes/threads, mutexes, semaphores, message queues
After reading a bit of each, you should have a basic grasp of all the different aspects of optimization.
Note: I wiki-ed this so people can add book recommendations.
I am going with the idea that optimizing a code is to get the same results in less time. And fully optimized only means they ran out of ideas to make it faster. I throw large buckets of scorn on claims of "fully optimized" code! There's no such thing.
So you want to make your application/program/module run faster? First thing to do (as mentioned earlier) is measure also known as profiling. Do not guess where to optimize. You are not that smart and you will be wrong. My guesses are wrong all the time and large portions of my year are spent profiling and optimizing. So get the computer to do it for you. For PC VTune is a great profiler. I think VS2008 has a built in profiler, but I haven't looked into it. Otherwise measure functions and large pieces of code with performance counters. You'll find sample code for using performance counters on MSDN.
So where are your cycles going? You are probably waiting for data coming from main memory. Go read up on L1 & L2 caches. Understanding how the cache works is half the battle. Hint: Use tight, compact structures that will fit more into a cache-line.
Optimization is lots of fun. And it's never ending too :)
A great book on optimization is Write Great Code: Understanding the Machine by Randall Hyde.
Make sure your application produces correct results before you start optimizing it.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
Why are functional languages always tailing behind C in benchmarks? If you have a statically typed functional language, it seems to me it could be compiled to the same code as C, or to even more optimized code since more semantics are available to the compiler. Why does it seem like all functional languages are slower than C, and why do they always need garbage collection and excessive use of the heap?
Does anyone know of a functional language appropriate for embedded / real-time applications, where memory allocation is kept to a minimum and the produced machine code is lean and fast?
Are functional languages inherently slow?
In some sense, yes. They require infrastructure that inevitably adds overheads over what can theoretically be attained using assembler by hand. In particular, first-class lexical closures only work well with garbage collection because they allow values to be carried out of scope.
Why are functional languages always tailing behind C in benchmarks?
Firstly, beware of selection bias. C acts as a lowest common denominator in benchmark suites, limiting what can be accomplished. If you have a benchmark comparing C with a functional language then it is almost certainly an extremely simple program. Arguably so simple that it is of little practical relevance today. It is not practically feasible to solve more complicated problems using C for a mere benchmark.
The most obvious example of this is parallelism. Today, we all have multicores. Even my phone is a multicore. Multicore parallelism is notoriously difficult in C but can be easy in functional languages (I like F#). Other examples include anything that benefits from persistent data structures, e.g. undo buffers are trivial with purely functional data structures but can be a huge amount of work in imperative languages like C.
Why does it seem like all functional languages are slower than C, and why do they always need garbage collection and excessive use of the heap?
Functional languages will seem slower because you'll only ever see benchmarks comparing code that is easy enough to write well in C and you'll never see benchmarks comparing meatier tasks where functional languages start to excel.
However, you've correctly identified what is probably the single biggest bottleneck in functional languages today: their excessive allocation rates. Nice work!
The reasons why functional languages allocate so heavily can be split into historical and inherent reasons.
Historically, Lisp implementations have been doing a lot of boxing for 50 years now. This characteristic spread to many other languages which use Lisp-like intermediate representations. Over the years, language implementers have continually resorted to boxing as a quick fix for complications in language implementation. In object oriented languages, the default has been to always heap allocate every object even when it can obviously be stack allocated. The burden of efficiency was then pushed onto the garbage collector and a huge amount of effort has been put into building garbage collectors that can attain performance close to that of stack allocation, typically by using a bump-allocating nursery generation. I think that a lot more effort should be put into researching functional language designs that minimize boxing and garbage collector designs that are optimized for different requirements.
Generational garbage collectors are great for languages that heap allocate a lot because they can be almost as fast as stack allocation. But they add substantial overheads elsewhere. Today's programs are increasingly using data structures like queues (e.g. for concurrent programming) and these give pathological behaviour for generational garbage collectors. If the items in the queue outlive the first generation then they all get marked, then they all get copied ("evacuated"), then all of the references to their old locations get updated and then they become eligible for collection. This is about 3× slower than it needs to be (e.g. compared to C). Mark region collectors like Beltway (2002) and Immix (2008) have the potential to solve this problem because the nursery is replaced with a region that can either be collected as if it were a nursery or, if it contains mostly reachable values, it can be replaced with another region and left to age until it contains mostly unreachable values.
Despite the pre-existence of C++, the creators of Java made the mistake of adopting type erasure for generics, leading to unnecessary boxing. For example, I benchmarked a simple hash table running 17× faster on .NET than the JVM partly because .NET did not make this mistake (it uses reified generics) and also because .NET has value types. I actually blame Lisp for making Java slow.
All modern functional language implementations continue to box excessively. JVM-based languages like Clojure and Scala have little choice because the VM they target cannot even express value types. OCaml sheds type information early in its compilation process and resorts to tagged integers and boxing at run-time to handle polymorphism. Consequently, OCaml will often box individual floating point numbers and always boxes tuples. For example, a triple of bytes in OCaml is represented by a pointer (with an implicit 1-bit tag embedded in it that gets checked repeatedly at run-time) to a heap-allocated block with a 64 bit header and 192 bit body containing three tagged 63-bit integers (where the 3 tags are, again, repeatedly examined at run time!). This is clearly insane.
Some work has been done on unboxing optimizations in functional languages but it never really gained traction. For example, the MLton compiler for Standard ML was a whole-program optimizing compiler that did sophisticated unboxing optimizations. Sadly, it was before its time and the "long" compilation times (probably under 1s on a modern machine!) deterred people from using it.
The only major platform to have broken this trend is .NET but, amazingly, it appears to have been an accident. Despite having a Dictionary implementation very heavily optimized for keys and values that are of value types (because they are unboxed) Microsoft employees like Eric Lippert continue to claim that the important thing about value types is their pass-by-value semantics and not the performance characteristics that stem from their unboxed internal representation. Eric seems to have been proven wrong: more .NET developers seem to care more about unboxing than pass-by-value. Indeed, most structs are immutable and, therefore, referentially transparent so there is no semantic difference between pass-by-value and pass-by-reference. Performance is visible and structs can offer massive performance improvements. The performance of structs even saved Stack Overflow and structs are used to avoid GC latency in commercial software like Rapid Addition's!
The other reason for heavy allocation by functional languages is inherent. Imperative data structures like hash tables use huge monolithic arrays internally. If these were persistent then the huge internal arrays would need to be copied every time an update was made. So purely functional data structures like balanced binary trees are fragmented into many little heap-allocated blocks in order to facilitate reuse from one version of the collection to the next.
Clojure uses a neat trick to alleviate this problem when collections like dictionaries are only written to during initialization and are then read from a lot. In this case, the initialization can use mutation to build the structure "behind the scenes". However, this does not help with incremental updates and the resulting collections are still substantially slower to read than their imperative equivalents. On the up-side, purely functional data structures offer persistence whereas imperative ones do not. However, few practical applications benefit from persistence in practice so this is often not advantageous. Hence the desire for impure functional languages where you can drop to imperative style effortlessly and reap the benefits.
Does anyone know of a functional language appropriate for embedded / real-time applications, where memory allocation is kept to a minimum and the produced machine code is lean and fast?
Take a look at Erlang and OCaml if you haven't already. Both are reasonable for memory constrained systems but neither generate particularly great machine code.
Nothing is inherently anything. Here is an example where interpreted OCaml runs faster than equivalent C code, because the OCaml optimizer has different information available to it, due to differences in the language. Of course, it would be foolish to make a general claim that OCaml is categorically faster than C. The point is, it depends upon what you're doing, and how you do it.
That said, OCaml is an example of a (mostly) functional language which is actually designed for performance, in contrast to purity.
Functional languages require the elimination of mutable state that is visible at the level of the language abstraction. Therefore, data that would be mutated in place by an imperative language needs to be copied instead, with the mutation taking place on the copy. For a simple example, see a quick sort in Haskell vs. C.
Furthermore, garbage collection is required because free() is not a pure function, as it has side effects. Therefore, the only way to free memory that does not involve side effects at the level of the language abstraction is with garbage collection.
Of course, in principle, a sufficiently smart compiler could optimize out much of this copying. This is already done to some degree, but making the compiler sufficiently smart to understand the semantics of your code at that level is just plain hard.
The short answer: because C is fast. As in, blazingly ridiculously crazy fast. A language simply doesn't have to be 'slow' to get its rear handed to it by C.
The reason why C is fast is that it was created by really great coders, and gcc has been optimized over the course of a couple more decades and by dozens more brilliant coders than 99% of languages out there.
In short, you're not going to beat C except for specialized tasks that require very specific functional programming constructs.
The control flow of proceedural languages much better matches the actual processing patterns of modern computers.
C maps very closely onto the assembly code its compilation produces, hence the nickname "cross-platform assembly". Computer manufacturers have spent a few decades making assembly code run as fast as possible, so C inherits all of this raw speed.
In comparison, the no side-effects, inherent parallelism of functional languages does not map onto a single processor at all well. The arbitrary order in which functions can be invoked needs to be serialised down to the CPU bottleneck: without extremely clever compilation, you're going to be context switching all the time, none of the pre-fetching will work because you're constantly jumping all over the place, ... Basically, all the optimisation work that computer manufacturers have done for nice, predictable proceedural languages is pretty much useless.
However! With the move towards lots of less powerful cores (rather than one or two turbo-charged cores), functional languages should begin to close the gap, as they naturally scale horizontally.
C is fast because it's basically a set of macros for assembler :) There is no "behind the scene" when you are writing a program in C. You alloc memory when you decide it's time to do that and you free in the same fashion. This is a huge advantage when you are writing a real time application, where predictabily is important (more than anything else, actually).
Also, C compilers are generally extremly fast because language itself is simple. It even doesn't make any type checkings :) This also means that is easier to make hard to find errors.
Ad advantage with the lack of type checking is that a function name can just be exported with its name for example and this makes C code easy to link with other language's code
Well Haskell is only 1.8 times slower than GCC's C++, which is faster than GCC's C implementation for typical benchmark tasks.
That makes Haskell very fast, even faster than C#(Mono that is).
relative Language
speed
1.0 C++ GNU g++
1.1 C GNU gcc
1.2 ATS
1.5 Java 6 -server
1.5 Clean
1.6 Pascal Free Pascal
1.6 Fortran Intel
1.8 Haskell GHC
2.0 C# Mono
2.1 Scala
2.2 Ada 2005 GNAT
2.4 Lisp SBCL
3.9 Lua LuaJIT
source
For the record I use Lua for Games on the iPhone, thus you could easily use Haskell or Lisp if you prefer, since they are faster.
As for now, functional languages aren't used heavily for industry projects, so not enough serious work goes into optimizers. Also, optimizing imperative code for an imperative target is probably way easier.
Functional languages have one feat that will let them outdo imperative languages really soon now: trivial parallelization.
Trivial not in the sense that it is easy, but that it can be built into the language environment, without the developer needing to think about it.
The cost of robust multithreading in a thread-agnostic language like C is prohibitive for many projects.
I disagree with tuinstoel. The important question is whether the functional language provides a faster development time and results in faster code when it is used to what functional languages were meant to be used. See the efficiency issues section on Wikipedia for a glimpse of what I mean.
One more reason for bigger executable size could be lazy evaluation and non-strictness. The compiler can't figure out at compile-time when certain expressions get evaluated, so some runtime gets stuffed into the executable to handle this (to call upon the evaluation of the so-called thunks). As for performance, laziness can be both good and bad. On one hand it allows for additional potential optimization, on the other hand the code size can be larger and programmers are more likely to make bad decisions, e.g. see Haskell's foldl vs. foldr vs. foldl' vs. foldr'.