÷

 Are the ATS programs faster?

Do the ATS programs use optimized assembly code libraries? Are they small simple programs or very optimized programs? Do the ATS programs use a fraction of the time used by other programs or do they use several times more?


 ATS used what fraction? used how many times more? 
Programs Time Memory Code Reduced N
↓ fasta±1/22×
↓ mandelbrot±±3×
↓ n-body±1/2±
↓ pidigits±±±
↓ reverse-complement±1/2±
↓ spectral-norm2×±2×
↓ binary-trees3×±±
↓ fannkuch5×1/2±
↓ regex-dna5×2×2×

± look at the measurements and then look at the programs.

 Are the ATS programs faster?

Program & Logs CPU secs Elapsed secs Memory KB Code B ~ CPU Load
 fasta 
ATS5.385.384322257  100% 0% 0% 0%
C++ GNU g++6.076.077481266  100% 0% 0% 0%
 mandelbrot 
ATS22.105.5328,9762780  100% 100% 100% 100%
C++ GNU g++24.676.1730,436858  100% 100% 100% 100%
 n-body 
ATS24.8924.894562088  0% 100% 0% 0%
C++ GNU g++23.8223.827881428  100% 0% 0% 0%
 pidigits 
ATS3.483.481,0761008  1% 100% 0% 0%
C++ GNU g++2.712.711,600682  0% 0% 0% 100%
 reverse-complement 
ATS1.191.19122,6282077  0% 0% 2% 100%
C++ GNU g++1.340.92245,4402275  68% 50% 14% 15%
 spectral-norm 
ATS20.575.541,2682339  93% 93% 92% 92%
C++ GNU g++11.983.001,0321114  100% 100% 100% 100%
 binary-trees 
ATS16.8416.84132,0401060  0% 0% 100% 0%
C++ GNU g++18.866.32173,332892  60% 74% 74% 71%
 fannkuch 
ATS66.6366.635081191  100% 0% 0% 0%
C++ GNU g++49.6113.631,1601186  81% 77% 100% 100%
 regex-dna 
ATS33.0033.00155,7762551  100% 0% 0% 0%
C++ GNU g++19.686.2399,2521588  65% 64% 100% 88%
 k-nucleotide
ATSMake Error
 chameneos-redux
   No program

 ATS : dependent types & linear types plus theorem proving 

0.1.6

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

Revised BSD license