Performance – Wren
Even though most benchmarks aren’t worth the pixels they’re printed on, people seem to like them, so here’s a few:
Shorter bars are better. Each benchmark is run ten times and the best time is kept. It only measures the time taken to execute the benchmarked code itself, not interpreter startup.
These were run on my MacBook Pro 2.3 GHz Intel Core i7 with 16 GB of 1,600 MHz DDR3 RAM. Tested against Lua 5.2.3, LuaJIT 2.0.2, Python 2.7.5, Python 3.3.4, ruby 2.0.0p247. LuaJIT is run with the JIT disabled (i.e. in bytecode interpreter mode) since I want to support platforms where JIT-compilation is disallowed. LuaJIT with the JIT enabled is much faster than all of the other languages benchmarked, including Wren, because Mike Pall is a robot from the future.
Most languages in the first bucket aren’t suitable for production use. (Servers are one exception, because you can throw more hardware at a slow language there.) Languages in the second bucket are fast enough for many use cases, even on client hardware, as the success of the listed languages shows. Languages in the third bucket are quite fast, but their implementations are breathtakingly complex, often rivaling that of compilers for statically-typed languages.
.avif)
