Compare the performance of ATS programs against some other language implementation.

For more information about the ATS implementation we measured see ↓ about ATS.

Compare to:

 ATS comparison summary


1/2 1/3 1/4 … ATS is better
Programs Time Memory Use Source Size Reduced N
chameneos-reduxNo program
pidigits  No GNU g++
k-nucleotideMake Error
binary-trees1/2±2
fasta±1/22
mandelbrot±±3
fannkuch±1/22
n-body±1/2±
reverse-complement±1/22
regex-dna±±2
spectral-norm2±2

± look at the measurements

 ATS comparison measurements

Program & Logs CPU secs Memory KB Size B Elapsed secs ~ CPU Load
 binary-trees 
ATS16.84132,040106016.84  0% 0% 100% 0%
C++ GNU g++ #240.8099,39655340.79  0% 0% 0% 100%
 fasta 
ATS5.3843222575.38  100% 0% 0% 0%
C++ GNU g++ #46.0774412666.07  0% 100% 0% 0%
 mandelbrot 
ATS #322.1028,97627805.53  100% 100% 100% 100%
C++ GNU g++ #524.7028,8008586.18  100% 100% 100% 100%
 fannkuch 
ATS66.63508119166.63  100% 0% 0% 0%
C++ GNU g++ #271.421,09255471.41  100% 0% 0% 0%
 n-body 
ATS #224.89456208824.89  0% 100% 0% 0%
C++ GNU g++ #423.84788142823.84  1% 0% 100% 0%
 reverse-complement 
ATS1.19122,62820771.19  0% 0% 2% 100%
C++ GNU g++ #21.81245,09210981.13  15% 31% 21% 88%
 regex-dna 
ATS33.00155,776255133.00  100% 0% 0% 0%
C++ GNU g++ #328.80116,612159928.80  31% 0% 0% 70%
 spectral-norm 
ATS #220.571,26823395.54  93% 93% 92% 92%
C++ GNU g++ #712.011,03211143.01  100% 100% 100% 100%

 about ATS

0.1.6

Home Page: ATS -- unleashing the potential of types!

Revised BSD license