hello,
i wanted to test AngelScript execution speed, so, i've executed a loop from -100000 to 100000, in C++, the execution took about 37.7 seconds, but in AngelScript, it took about 96.3 seconds
i don't know, the AngelScript is eaven slower than lua (from other tests that i've read)

this is the script which is executed on the AngelScript:

void main()
{
InitTimer();
for(auto i=-100000;i<=100000;i++)
{
cout<<i<<"\n";
}
cout<<"\nexecution success\n";
cout<<"the execution took "+GetTime()+" seconds\n";
}

#include <iostream>
#include <bcl/systimer.h>

using namespace std;
int main()
{
InitTimer();
for(auto i=-100000;i<=100000;i++)
{
cout<<i<<"\n";
}
cout<<"\nexecution success\n";
cout<<"the execution took "<<GetTime()<<" seconds\n";
}

This is a bad way to benchmark performance; you spend more time on outputting the variables to the console, than doing anything useful. This doesn't make any sense unless your application is meant to print tons of data to the console.

Try doing something that doesn't involve IO operations, that'll give you a better idea about execution performance. Like, write a micro ray-tracer, that intersects against spheres.

ok, this is fibonacci test which i got from codeplea.com and modified that on the sandbox, which is executed on 261.941 seconds

int fibR(int n)
{
    if (n < 2) return n;
    return (fibR(n-2) + fibR(n-1));
}

int fibI(int n)
{
    int last = 0;
    int cur = 1;
    --n;
    while(n > 0)
    {
        --n;
        int tmp = cur;
        cur = last + cur;
        last = tmp;
    }
    return cur;
}


void main()
{
InitTimer();
    const int N = 43;
    cout<<"fib: "+fibR(N);
    cout<<" = "+fibI(N);
    cout<<"\n";
cout<<"the execution took "+GetTime()+" seconds\n";
}

no, i not mean that, i mean AngelScript is slower than it should be

i don't know, the AngelScript is eaven slower than lua

ok, i don't know why lua is so fast, with a simple syntax and 100 kb of interpreter, which is only in ansi C (luajit as far as i know, turn's the code into asm which make's it so fast)

but anyway, for fibonacci, the AngelScript is a little bit slow (i don't want to compair it with c because c work's completely different from AngelScript and it is compiled to native code, not byteCode)

i think, AngelScript's byteCode must be optimized more

How much faster do you think AngelScript should be? 10% faster? 50% faster? Twice as fast? 10 times faster? :)

If you have any suggestions for how to optimize the code I would be very interested in hearing that.

It's so funny (but also frustrating) when AngelScript is compared with Lua. I would love to have the resources that the team behind Lua has. You do know that Lua was invented back in 1993 by a team at a university and is still maintained by that same university (PUC-Rio in Brazil) and has actual investment money behind it? AngelScript on the other hand was invented by me in 2003 and is maintained by me with zero investment money? I've been working on AngelScript on my spare time for 13,5 years now. While some of the code has been contributed by community members it is practically a work done by a one-man-team.

All things considered I think AngelScript is comparing quite well to other scripting libraries out there (including Lua).

PS. Have you tried Blind Mind's JIT compiler for AngelScript? Perhaps it will allow you to get the performance you want.