I was reading about the pros and cons of interpreted languages, and one of the most common cons is the slowness, but why are programs in interpreted languages slow?
Native programs runs using instructions written for the processor they run on.
Interpreted languages are just that, "interpreted". Some other form of instruction is read, and interpreted, by a runtime, which in turn executes native machine instructions.
Think of it this way. If you can talk in your native language to someone, that would generally work faster than having an interpreter having to translate your language into some other language for the listener to understand.
Note that what I am describing above is for when a language is running in an interpreter. There are interpreters for many languages that there is also native linkers for that build native machine instructions. The speed reduction (however the size of that might be) only applies to the interpreted context.
So, it is slightly incorrect to say that the language is slow, rather it is the context in which it is running that is slow.
C# is not an interpreted language, even though it employs an intermediate language (IL), this is JITted to native instructions before being executed, so it has some of the same speed reduction, but not all of it, but I'd bet that if you built a fully fledged interpreter for C# or C++, it would run slower as well.
And just to be clear, when I say "slow", that is of course a relative term.
All answers seem to miss the real important point here. It's the detail how "interpreted" code is implemented.
Interpreted script languages are slower because their method, object and global variable space model is dynamic. In my opinion this is the real definition of of script language not the fact that it is interpreted. This requires many extra hash-table lookups on each access to a variable or method call. And its the main reason why they are all terrible at multithreading and using a GIL (Global Interpreter Lock). This lookups is where most of the time is spent. It is a painful random memory lookup, which really hurts when you get a L1/L2 cache-miss.
Google's Javascript Core8 is so fast and targeting almost C speed for a simple optimization: they take the object data model as fixed and create internal code to access it like the data structure of a native compiled program. When a new variable or method is added or removed then the whole compiled code is discarded and compiled again.
The technique is well explained in the Deutsch/Schiffman paper "Efficient Implementation of the Smalltalk-80 System".
The question why php, python and ruby aren't doing this is pretty simple to answer: the technique is extremely complicated to implement.
And only Google has the money to pay for JavaScript because a fast browser-based JavaScript interpreter is their fundamental need of their billion dollar business model.
Think of the interpeter as an emulator for a machine you don't happen to have
The short answer is that the compiled languages are executed by machine instructions whereas the interpreted ones are executed by a program (written in a compiled language) that reads either the source or a bytecode and then essentially emulates a hypothetical machine that would have run the program directly if the machine existed.
Think of the interpreted runtime as an emulator for a machine that you don't happen to actually have around at the moment.
This is obviously complicated by the JIT (Just In Time) compilers that Java, C#, and others have. In theory, they are just as good as "AOT" ("At One Time") compilers but in practice those languages run slower and are handicapped by needing to have the compiler around using up memory and time at the program's runtime. But if you say any of that here on SO be prepared to attract rabid JIT defenders who insist that there is no theoretical difference between JIT and AOT. If you ask them if Java and C# are as fast as C and C++, then they start making excuses and kind of calm down a little. :-)
So, C++ totally rules in games where the maximum amount of available computing can always be put to use.
On the desktop and web, information-oriented tasks are often done by languages with more abstraction or at least less compilation, because the computers are very fast and the problems are not computationally intensive, so we can spend some time on goals like time-to-market, programmer productivity, reliable memory-safe environments, dynamic modularity, and other powerful tools.
This is a good question, but should be formulated a little different in my opinion, for example: "Why are interpreted languages slower than compiled languages?"
I think it is a common misconception that interpreted languages are slow per se. Interpreted languages are not slow, but, depending on the use case, might be slower than the compiled version. In most cases interpreted languages are actually fast enough!
"Fast enough", plus the increase in productivity from using a language like Python over, for example, C should be justification enough to consider an interpreted language. Also, you can always replace certain parts of your interpreted program with a fast C implementation, if you really need speed. But then again, measure first and determine if speed is really the problem, then optimize.
In addition to the other answers there's optimization: when you're compiling a programme, you don't usually care how long it takes to compile - the compiler has lots of time to optimize your code. When you're interpreting code, it has to be done very quickly so some of the more clever optimizations might not be able to be made.
Loop a 100 times, the contents of the loop are interpreted 100 times into low level code.
Not cached, not reused, not optimised.
In simple terms, a compiler interprets once into low level code
Edit, after comments:
JIT is compiled code, not interpreted. It's just compiled later not up-front
I refer to the classical definition, not modern practical implementations
A simple question, without any real simple answer. The bottom line is that all computers really "understand" is binary instructions, which is what "fast" languages like C are compiled into.
Then there are virtual machines, which understand different binary instructions (like Java and .NET) but those have to be translated on the fly to machine instructions by a Just-In-Compiler (JIT). That is almost as fast (even faster in some specific cases because the JIT has more information than a static compiler on how the code is being used.)
Then there are interpreted languages, which usually also have their own intermediate binary instructions, but the interpreter functions much like a loop with a large switch statement in it with a case for every instruction, and how to execute it. This level of abstraction over the underlying machine code is slow. There are more instructions involved, long chains of function calls in the interpreter to do even simple things, and it can be argued that the memory and cache aren't used as effectively as a result.
But interpreted languages are often fast enough for the purposes for which they're used. Web applications are invariably bound by IO (usually database access) which is an order of magnitude slower than any interpreter.
From about.com:
An Interpreted language is processed
at runtime. Every line is read,
analysed, and executed. Having to
reprocess a line every time in a loop
is what makes interpreted languages so
slow. This overhead means that
interpreted code runs between 5 - 10
times slower than compiled code. The
interpreted languages like Basic or
JavaScript are the slowest. Their
advantage is not needing to be
recompiled after changes and that is
handy when you're learning to program.
The 5-10 times slower is not necessarily true for languages like Java and C#, however. They are interpreted, but the just-in-time compilers can generate machine language instructions for some operations, speeding things up dramatically (near the speed of a compiled language at times).
There is no such thing as an interpreted language. Any language can be implemented by an interpreter or a compiler. These days most languages have implementations using a compiler.
That said, interpreters are usually slower, because they need process the language or something rather close to it at runtime and translate it to machine instructions. A compiler does this translation to machine instructions only once, after that they are executed directly.
Yeah, interpreted languages are slow...
However, consider the following. I had a problem to solve. It took me 4 minutes to solve the problem in Python, and the program took 0.15 seconds to run. Then I tried to write it in C, and I got a runtime of 0.12 seconds, and it took me 1 hour to write it. All this because the practical way to solve problem in question was to use hashtables, and the hashtable dominated the runtime anyway.
Interpreted languages need to read and interpret your source code at execution time. With compiled code a lot of that interpretation is done ahead of time (at compilation time).
Very few contemporary scripting languages are "interpreted" these days; they're typically compiled on the fly, either into machine code or into some intermediate bytecode language, which is (more efficiently) executed in a virtual machine.
Having said that, they're slower because your cpu is executing many more instructions per "line of code", since many of the instructions are spent understanding the code rather than doing whatever the semantics of the line suggest!
Read this Pros And Cons Of Interpreted Languages
This is the relevant idea in that post to your problem.
An execution by an interpreter is
usually much less efficient then
regular program execution. It happens
because either every instruction
should pass an interpretation at
runtime or as in newer
implementations, the code has to be
compiled to an intermediate
representation before every execution.
For the same reason that it's slower to talk via translator than in native language. Or, reading with dictionary. It takes time to translate.
Update: no, I didn't see that my answer is the same as the accepted one, to a degree ;-)
Wikipedia says,
Interpreting code is slower than running the compiled code because the interpreter must analyze each statement in the program each time it is executed and then perform the desired action, whereas the compiled code just performs the action within a fixed context determined by the compilation. This run-time analysis is known as "interpretive overhead". Access to variables is also slower in an interpreter because the mapping of identifiers to storage locations must be done repeatedly at run-time rather than at compile time.
Refer this IBM doc,
Interpreted program must be translated each time it is executed, there is a higher overhead. Thus, an interpreted language is generally more suited to ad hoc requests than predefined requests.
In Java though it is considered as an interpreted language, It uses JIT (Just-in-Time) compilation which mitigate the above issue by using a caching technique to cache the compiled bytecode.
The JIT compiler reads the bytecodes in many sections (or in full, rarely) and compiles them dynamically into machine code so the program can run faster. This can be done per-file, per-function or even on any arbitrary code fragment; the code can be compiled when it is about to be executed (hence the name "just-in-time"), and then cached and reused later without needing to be recompiled.
Related
What are the relative strengths and weaknesses of compiled and interpreted languages?
Neither approach has a clear advantage over the other - if one approach was always better, chances are that we'd start using it everywhere!
Generally speaking, compilers offer the following advantages:
Because they can see all the code up-front, they can perform a number of analyses and optimizations when generating code that makes the final version of the code executed faster than just interpreting each line individually.
Compilers can often generate low-level code that performs the equivalent of a high-level ideas like "dynamic dispatch" or "inheritance" in terms of memory lookups inside of tables. This means that the resulting programs need to remember less information about the original code, lowering the memory usage of the generated program.
Compiled code is generally faster than interpreted code because the instructions executed are usually just for the program itself, rather than the program itself plus the overhead from an interpreter.
Generally speaking, compilers have the following drawbacks:
Some language features, such as dynamic typing, are difficult to compile efficiently because the compiler can't predict what's going to happen until the program is actually run. This means that the compiler might not generate very good code.
Compilers generally have a long "start-up" time because of the cost of doing all the analysis that they do. This means that in settings like web browsers where it's important to load code fast, compilers might be slower because they optimize short code that won't be run many times.
Generally speaking, interpreters have the following advantages:
Because they can read the code as written and don't have to do expensive operations to generate or optimize code, they tend to start up faster than compilers.
Because interpreters can see what the program does as its running, interpreters can use a number of dynamic optimizations that compilers might not be able to see.
Generally speaking, interpreters have the following disadvantages:
Interpreters typically have higher memory usage than compilers because the interpreter needs to keep more information about the program available at runtime.
Interpreters typically spend some CPU time inside of the code for the interpreter, which can slow down the program being run.
Because interpreters and compilers have complementary strengths and weaknesses, it's becoming increasingly common for language runtimes to combine elements of both. Java's JVM is a good example of this - the Java code itself is compiled, and initially it's interpreted. The JVM can then find code that's run many, many times and compile it directly to machine code, meaning that "hot" code gets the benefits of compilation while "cold" code does not. The JVM can also perform a number of dynamic optimizations like inline caching to speed up performance in ways that compilers typically don't.
Many modern JavaScript implementations use similar tricks. Most JavaScript code is short and doesn't do all that much, so they typically start off using an interpreter. However, if it becomes clear that the code is being run repeatedly, many JS engines will compile the code - or at least, compile bits and pieces of it - and optimize it using standard techniques. The net result is that the code is fast at startup (useful for loading web pages quickly) but gets faster the more that it runs.
One last detail is that languages are not compiled or interpreted. Usually, C code is compiled, but there are C interpreters available that make it easier to debug or visualize the code that's being run (they're often used in introductory programming classes - or at least, they used to be.) JavaScript used to be thought of as an interpreted language until some JS engines started compiling it. Some Python implementations are purely interpreters, but you can get Python compilers that generate native code. Now, some languages are easier to compile or interpret than others, but there's nothing stopping you from making a compiler or interpreter for any particular programming language. There's a theoretical result called the Futamura projections that shows that anything that can be interpreted can be compiled, for example.
Because the Start up time it’s cheaper and you can read interpreters program as is makes it a no brainer to me for the interpreter
When designing a byte code interpreter, is there a consensus these days on whether stack or three address format (or something else?) is better? I'm looking at these considerations:
The objective language is a dynamic language fairly similar to Javascript.
Performance is important, but development speed and portability are more so for the moment.
Therefore the implementation will be strictly an interpreter for the time being; a JIT compiler may come later, resources permitting.
The interpreter will be written in C.
Read The evolution of Lua and The implementation of Lua 5.0 for how Lua changed from a stack-based virtual machine to a register-based virtual machine and why it gained performance doing it.
Experiments done by David Gregg and Roberto Ierusalimschy have shown that a register-based bytecode works better than a stack-based bytecode because fewer bytecode instructions (and therefore less decoding overhead) are required to do the same tasks. So three-address format is a clear winner.
I don't have much (not really any) experience in this area, so you might want to verify some of the following for yourself (or maybe someone else can correct me where necessary?).
The two languages I work with most nowadays are C# and Java, so I am naturally inclined to their methodologies. As most people know, both are compiled to byte code, and both platforms (the CLR and the JVM) utilize JIT (at least in the mainstream implementations). Also, I would guess that the jitters for each platform are written in C/C++, but I really don't know for sure.
All-in-all, these languages and their respective platforms are pretty similar to your situation (aside from the dynamic part, but I'm not sure if this matters). Also, since they are such mainstream languages, I'm sure their implementations can serve as a pretty good guide for your design.
With that out of the way, I know for sure that both the CLR and the JVM are stack-based architectures. Some of the advantages which I remember for stack-based vs register-based are
Smaller generated code
Simpler interpreters
Simpler compilers
etc.
Also, I find stack-based to be a little more intuitive and readable, but that's a subjective thing, and like I said before, I haven't seen too much byte code yet.
Some advantages of the register-based architecture are
Less instructions must be executed
Faster interpreters (follows from #1)
Can more readily be translated to machine code, since most commonplace hardwares are register based
etc.
Of course, there are always ways to offset the disadvantages for each, but I think these describe the obvious things to consider.
Take a look at the OCaml bytecode interpreter - it's one of the fastest of its kind. It is pretty much a stack machine, translated into a threaded code on loading (using the GNU computed goto extension). You can generate a Forth-like threaded code as well, should be relatively easy to do.
But if you're keeping a future JIT compilation in mind, make sure that your stack machine is not really a full-featured stack machine, but an expression tree serialisation form instead (like .NET CLI) - this way you'd be able to translate your "stack" bytecode into a 3-address form and then into an SSA.
If you have JIT in your mind then bytecodes is the only option.
Just in case you can take a look on my TIScript: http://www.codeproject.com/KB/recipes/TIScript.aspx
and sources: http://code.google.com/p/tiscript/
Is it possible to design something like Ruby or Clojure without the significant performance loss in many situations compared with C/Java? Does hardware design play a role?
Edit: With significant I mean in an order of magnitudes, not just ten procent
Edit: I suspect that delnan is correct with me meaning dynamic languages so I changed the title
Performance depends on many things. Of course the semantics of the language have to be preserved even if we are compiling it - you can't remove dynamic dispatch from Ruby, it would speed things up drmatically but it would totally break 95% of the all Ruby code in the world. But still, much of the performance depends on how smart the implementation is.
I assume, by "high-level", you mean "dynamic"? Haskell and OCaml are extremely high-level, yet are is compiled natively and can outperform C# or Java, even C and C++ in some corner cases - especially if parallelism comes into play. And they certainly weren't designed with performance as #1 goal. But compiler writers, especially those focused onfunctional languages, are a very clever folk. If you or I started a high-level language, even if we used e.g. LLVM as backend for native compilation, we wouldn't get anywhere near this performance.
Making dynamic languages run fast is harder - they delay many decisions (types, members of a class/an object, ...) to runtime instead of compiletime, and while static code analysis can sometimes prove it's not possible in lines n and m, you still have to carry an advanced runtime around and do quite a few things a static language's compiler can do at compiletime. Even dynamic dispatch can be optimized with a smarter VM (Inline Cache anyone?), but it's a lot of work. More than a small new-fangeled language could do, that is.
Also see Steve Yegge's Dynamic Languages Strike Back.
And of course, what is a significant peformance loss? 100 times slower than C reads like a lot, but as we all know, 80% of execution time is spent in 20% of the code = 80% of the code won't have notable impact on the percieved performance of the whole program. For the remaining 20%, you can always rewrite it in C or C++ and call it from the dynamic language. For many applications, this suffices (for some, you don't even need to optimize). For the rest... well, if performance is that critical, you should propably write it in a language designed for performance.
Don't confuse the language design with the platform that it runs on.
For instance, Java is a high-level language. It runs on the JVM (as does Clojure - identified above, and JRuby - a Java version of Ruby). The JVM will perform byte-code analysis and optimise how the code runs (making use of escape analysis, just-in-time compilation etc.). So the platform has an effect on the performance that is largely independent of the language itself (see here for more info on Java performance and comparisons to C/C++)
Loss compared to what? If you need a garbage collector or closures then you need them, and you're going to pay the price regardless. If a language makes them easy for you to get at, that doesn't mean you have to use them when you don't need them.
If a language is interpreted instead of compiled, that's going to introduce an order of magnitude slowdown. But such a language may have compensating advantages, like ease of use, platform independence, and not having to compile. And, the programs you write in them may not run long enough for speed to be an issue.
There may be language implementations that introduce slowness for no good reason, but those don't have to be used.
You might want to look at what the DARPA HPCS initiative has come up with. There were 3 programming languages proposed: Sun's Fortress, IBM's X10 and Cray's Chapel. The latter two are still under development. Whether any of these meet your definition of high-level I don't know.
And yes, hardware design certainly does play a part. All 3 of these languages are targeted at supercomputers with very many processors and exhibit features appropriate to that domain.
It's certainly possible. For example, Objective-C is a dynamically-typed language that has performance comparable to C++ (although a wee bit slower, generally speaking, but still roughly equivalent).
Isn't every language compiled into low-level computer language?
If so, shouldn't all languages have the same performance?
Just wondering...
As pointed out by others, not every language is translated into machine language; some are translated into some form (bytecode, reverse Polish, AST) that is interpreted.
But even among languages that are translated to machine code,
Some translators are better than others
Some language features are easier to translate to high-performance code than others
An example of a translator that is better than some others is the GCC C compiler. It has had many years' work invested in producing good code, and its translations outperform those of the simpler compilers lcc and tcc, for example.
An example of a feature that is hard to translate to high-performance code is C's ability to do pointer arithmetic and to dereference pointers: when a program stores through a pointer, it is very difficult for the compiler to know what memory locations are affected. Similarly, when an unknown function is called, the compiler must make very pessimistic assumptions about what might happen to the contents of objects allocated on the heap. In a language like Java, the compiler can do a better job translating because the type system enforces greater separation between pointers of different types. In a language like ML or Haskell, the compiler can do better still, because in these languages, most data allocated in memory cannot be changed by a function call. But of course object-oriented languages and functional languages present their own translation challenges.
Finally, translation of a Turing-complete language is itself a hard problem: in general, finding the best translation of a program is an NP-hard problem, which means that the only solutions known potentially take time exponential in the size of the program. This would be unacceptable in a compiler (can't wait forever to compile a mere few thousand lines), and so compilers use heuristics. There is always room for improvement in these heuristics.
It is easier and more efficient to map some languages into machine language than others. There is no easy analogy that I can think of for this. The closest I can come to is translating Italian to Spanish vs. translating a Khoisan language into Hawaiian.
Another analogy is saying "Well, the laws of physics are what govern how every animal moves, so why do some animals move so much faster than others? Shouldn't they all just move at the same speed?".
No, some languages are simply interpreted. They never actually get turned into machine code. So those languages will generally run slower than low-level languages like C.
Even for the languages which are compiled into machine code, sometimes what comes out of the compiler is not the most efficient possible way to write that given program. So it's often possible to write programs in, say, assembly language that run faster than their C equivalents, and C programs that run faster than their JIT-compiled Java equivalents, etc. (Modern compilers are pretty good, though, so that's not so much of an issue these days)
Yes, all programs get eventually translated into machine code. BUT:
Some programs get translated during compilation, while others are translated on-the-fly by an interpreter (e.g. Perl) or a virtual machine (e.g. original Java)
Obviously, the latter is MUCH slower as you spend time on translation during running.
Different languages can be translated into DIFFERENT machine code. Even when the same programming task is done. So that machine code might be faster or slower depending on the language.
You should understand the difference between compiling (which is translating) and interpreting (which is simulating). You should also understand the concept of a universal basis for computation.
A language or instruction set is universal if it can be used to write an interpreter (or simulator) for any other language or instruction set. Most computers are electronic, but they can be made in many other ways, such as by fluidics, or mechanical parts, or even by people following directions. A good teaching exercise is to write a small program in BASIC and then have a classroom of students "execute" the program by following its steps. Since BASIC is universal (to a first approximation) you can use it to write a program that simulates the instruction set for any other computer.
So you could take a program in your favorite language, compile (translate) it into machine language for your favorite machine, have an interpreter for that machine written in BASIC, and then (in principle) have a class full of students "execute" it. In this way, it is first being reduced to an instruction set for a "fast" machine, and then being executed by a very very very slow "computer". It will still get the same answer, only about a trillion times slower.
Point being, the concept of universality makes all computers equivalent to each other, even though some are very fast and others are very slow.
No, some languages are run by a 'software interpreter' as byte code.
Also, it depends on what the language does in the background as well, so 2 identically functioning programs in different languages may have different mechanics behind the scenes and hence be actually running different instructions resulting in differing performance.
Fortran's performances on Computer Language Benchmark Game are surprisingly bad. Today's result puts Fortran 14th and 11th on the two quad-core tests, 7th and 10th on the single cores.
Now, I know benchmarks are never perfect, but still, Fortran was (is?) often considered THE language for high performance computing and it seems like the type of problems used in this benchmark should be to Fortran's advantage. In an recent article on computational physics, Landau (2008) wrote:
However, [Java] is not as efficient or
as well supported for HPC and parallel
processing as are FORTRAN and C, the
latter two having highly developed
compilers and many more scientific
subroutine libraries available.
FORTRAN, in turn, is still the
dominant language for HPC, with
FORTRAN 90/95 being a surprisingly
nice, modern, and effective language;
but alas, it is hardly taught by any
CS departments, and compilers can be
expensive.
Is it only because of the compiler used by the language shootout (Intel's free compiler for Linux) ?
No, this isn't just because of the compiler.
What benchmarks like this -- where the program differs from benchmark to benchmark -- is largely the amount of effort (and quality of effort) that the programmer put into writing any given program. I suspect that Fortran is at a significant disadvantage in that particular metric -- unlike C and C++, the pool of programmers who'd want to try their hand at making the benchmark program better is pretty small, and unlike most anything else, they likely don't feel like they have something to prove either. So, there's no motivation for someone to spend a few days poring over generated assembly code and profiling the program to make it go faster.
This is fairly clear from the results that were obtained. In general, with sufficient programming effort and a decent compiler, neither C, C++, nor Fortran will be significantly slower than assembly code -- certainly not more than 5-10%, at worst, except for pathological cases. The fact that the actual results obtained here are more variant than that indicates to me that "sufficient programming effort" has not been expended.
There are exceptions when you allow the assembly to use vector instructions, but don't allow the C/C++/Fortran to use corresponding compiler intrinsics -- automatic vectorization is not even a close approximation of perfect and probably never will be. I don't know how much those are likely to apply here.
Similarly, an exception is in things like string handling, where you depend heavily on the runtime library (which may be of varying quality; Fortran is rarely a case where a fast string library will make money for the compiler vendor!), and on the basic definition of a "string" and how that's represented in memory.
Some random thoughts:
Fortran used to do very well because it was easier to identify loop invariants which made some optimizations easier for the compiler. Since then
Compilers have gotten much more sophisticated. Enormous effort has been put into c and c++ compilers in particular. Have the fortran compilers kept up? I suppose the gfortran uses the same back end of gcc and g++, but what of the intel compiler? It used to be good, but is it still?
Some languages have gotten a lot specialized keywords and syntax to help the compiler (restricted and const int const *p in c, and inline in c++). Not knowing fortran 90 or 95 I can't say if these have kept pace.
I've looked at these tests. It's not like the compiler is wrong or something. In most tests Fortran is comparable to C++ except some where it gets beaten by a factor of 10. These tests just reflect what one should know from the beggining - that Fortran is simply NOT an all-around interoperable programming language - it is suited for efficient computation, has good list operations & stuff but for example IO sucks unless you are doing it with specific Fortran-like methods - like e.g. 'unformatted' IO.
Let me give you an example - the 'reverse-complement' program that is supposed to read a large (of order of 10^8 B) file from stdin line-by-line, does something with it & prints the resulting large file to stdout. The pretty straighforward Fortran program is about 10 times slower on a single core (~10s) than a HEAVILY optimized C++ (~1s). When you try to play with the program, you'll see that only simple formatted read & write take more than 8 seconds. In a Fortran way, if you care for efficiency, you'd just write an unformatted structure to a file & read it back in no time (which is totally non-portable & stuff but who cares anyway - an efficient code is supposed to be fast & optimized for a specific machine, not able to run everywhere).
So the short answer is - don't worry, just do your job - and if you want to write a super-efficient operating system, than sorry - Fortran is just not the way for that kind of performance.
This benchmark is stupid at all.
For example, they measure CPU-time for the whole program to run. As mcmint stated (and it might be actually true) Fortran I/O sucks*. But who cares? In real-world tasks one read input for some seconds than do calculations for hours/days/months and finally write output for the seconds. Thats why in most benchmarks I/O operations are excluded from time measurements (if you of course do not benchmark I/O by itself).
Norber Wiener in his book God & Golem, Inc. wrote
Render unto man the things which are man’s and unto the computer the things which are the computer’s.
In my opinion the usage of this principle while implementing algorithm in any programming language means:
Write as readable and simple code as you can and let compiler do the optimizations.
Especially it is important in real-world (huge) applications. Dirty tricks (so heavily used in many benchmarks) even if they might improve the efficiency to some extent (5%, maybe 10%) are not for the real-world projects.
/* C/C++ uses stream I/O, but Fortran traditionally uses record-based I/O. Further reading. Anyway I/O in that benchmarks are so surprising. The usage of stdin/stdout redirection might also be the source of problem. Why not simply use the ability of reading/writing files provided by the language or standard library? Once again this woud be more real-world situation.
I would like to say that even if the benchmark do not bring up the best results for FORTRAN, this language will still be used and for a long time. Reasons of use are not just performance but also some kind of thing called easyness of programmability. Lots of people that learnt to use it in the 60's and 70's are now too old for getting into new stuff and they know how to use FORTRAN pretty well. I mean, there are a lot of human factors for a language to be used. The programmer also matters.
Considering they did not publish the exact compiler options they used for the Intel Fortran Compiler, I have little faith in their benchmark.
I would also remark that both Intel's math library, MKL, and AMD's math library, ACML, use the Intel Fortran Compiler.
Edit:
I did find the compilation options when you click on the benchmark's name. The result is surprising since the optimization level seems reasonable. It may come down to the efficiency of the algorithm.