

Mono 3.10.0 - merrua
http://www.mono-project.com/docs/about-mono/releases/3.10.0/

======
CoffeeDregs
I've always wondered at the performance of Mono relative to the Real C#, but I
suspect that Microsoft has language in the license to prevent such benchmarks
(or something)...

Some benchmarks are in the Game. Looking over the benchmarks, I realized that
I shouldn't be comparing Mono to the Real C# since I wouldn't ever run Mono on
Windows. I'd only ever run it on Linux, so, if you're running a Linux stack,
Mono should be compared to its colleagues in the Linux space.

    
    
        Mono vs Java: http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/csharp.php
        Mono vs Go  : http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=csharp&lang2=go
        Mono vs Rust: http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=csharp&lang2=rust

~~~
pjmlp
With the caveat language != implementation.

~~~
bunderbunder
True, but FWIW that site is somewhat admirable for at least trying to cut
implementation out & focus on language.

For example, see the documentation for the binary-trees test:
[http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/performance.php...](http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/performance.php?test=binarytrees)

There are a bunch of notes trying to make it very explicit that this test is
supposed to isolate the garbage collector's performance. So they discourage
lazy evaluation on the grounds that it might not produce the kind of
allocation pattern the test is supposed to generate, and there's that bold
admonition against memory management hacks, and all of that.

I'm sure there's still plenty room for gaming the system, but looking at the
actual C# & Java implementations for the test reveal that by-and-large they
really are roughly equivalent. In particular, the C# doesn't resort to any
obvious dirty trick like declaring the tree node datatype as a struct rather
than a class. The upshot being, what that particularly test suggests is
something that probably shouldn't come as much surprise: Mono's gc, while
good, isn't quite as performant as HotSpot's.

~~~
pjmlp
I am speaking about language implementation, not algorithm implementation.

Most of those tests are using just one single compiler implementation per
language.

It would be much fairer to have multiple compiler implementations per language
being used.

------
sibartlett
Mono 3.10.0 is the latest version of Mono (released over the weekend); not
3.8.0

~~~
misnome
Release notes appear to be: [http://www.mono-project.com/docs/about-
mono/releases/3.10.0/](http://www.mono-project.com/docs/about-
mono/releases/3.10.0/)

Weirdly, 3.8.0 is the "latest" news release on their page.

~~~
CmonDev
Well, both releases are nice, thanks for posting :)

