Compare the performance of Nice programs against some other language implementation, or check the Nice CPU time and Memory use measurements.
For more information about the Nice implementation we measured see ↓ about Nice.
Are the Nice programs better?
For each of one our benchmarks, a white bar shows which language implementation had the faster program, and a black bar shows which used the least memory.
How many times better?
How many times faster or smaller are the Nice programs than the corresponding Java 6 -server programs?
| Nice x times better ~ Java 6 -server x times better | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Program & Logs | Faster | Smaller: Memory Use | Smaller: GZip Bytes | Reduced N |
| binary-trees | ~1.1 | ~1.0 | 1.3 | |
| chameneos-redux | ~11.8 | ~1.0 | 1.3 | |
| fannkuch | ~1.2 | ~1.3 | 1.1 | |
| fasta | ~1.8 | ~1.2 | 1.2 | |
| k-nucleotide | ~1.0 | ~1.1 | 1.4 | |
| mandelbrot | ~1.2 | ~1.0 | 1.4 | |
| meteor-contest | ||||
| n-body | ~1.2 | ~1.0 | 1.1 | |
| nsieve | ~1.0 | ~1.1 | 1.3 | |
| nsieve-bits | ~2.0 | ~1.1 | 1.5 | |
| partial-sums | ~1.0 | ~1.5 | 1.1 | |
| pidigits | ~6.8 | ~2.8 | 1.4 | |
| recursive | ~1.6 | ~2.2 | 1.1 | |
| regex-dna | ~1.1 | ~1.3 | 1.1 | |
| reverse-complement | ~1.2 | 1.8 | 1.2 | |
| spectral-norm | 1.0 | ~1.0 | 1.4 | |
| startup | ~1.4 | 1.6 | ||
| sum-file | ~1.8 | ~1.1 | 1.2 | |
| thread-ring | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.4 | |
about Nice
"Twice as Nice: Learn how this highly expressive language is a safe bet for the Java platform", 06 Oct 2004, IBM developerWorks
Nice compiler version 0.9.12 prerelease (build 2005.10.24, 05:01:51 UTC) Compiled using JDK 1.4.2
Home Page: http://nice.sourceforge.net/
Download: http://nice.sourceforge.net/install.html
