4

I've documented the Ahl benchmark's history, and now I would like to do the same for Byte's version of the sieve. Does anyone have a pointer to the first appearance of this code as a benchmarking tool in that magazine?

10

The earliest use, as far as I can determine, of the sieve of Eratosthenes as a benchmark in Byte’s editorial content is in the September 1981 issue, page 180: “A High-Level Language Benchmark”. The article introduces the algorithm and a number of implementations, and uses it to compare various interpreters and compilers on different platforms.

This approach was revisited in the January 1983 issue, page 283: “Eratosthenes Revisited — Once More through the Sieve”, and again in the August 1984 issue, page 132, when the Byte Unix benchmark was introduced.

  • That's exactly what I'm looking for, thanks! I also found another later article on the PC so it could go out to larger numbers, but that was not a bench. – Maury Markowitz May 1 at 20:24
  • Oh, and an MPI printer on the facing page! – Maury Markowitz May 1 at 20:25
5

Not exactly what you are looking for, but meets the technical statement of "a pointer to the first appearance of this code as a benchmarking tool in that magazine" and is earlier than Stephen Kitt's answer. November 1980:

https://archive.org/details/byte-magazine-1980-11-rescan/page/n255?q=sieve

This is in an ad for Digital Research PL/I, and specifically refers to "Erastothenes Sieve" as a benchmark. Though I suppose that leaves open the question of how Digital Research's Sieve compares to the BYTE Magazine Sieve.

  • 3
    It all depends on whether “this code” refers to any implementation of the sieve, or Byte’s in particular — I assumed the latter. – Stephen Kitt May 1 at 17:51
  • 1
    Ahh, I think this is an interesting point! The original article mentions that Gary Kildal personally supplied a version in PL/1 to be included in the article, and it also mentions that it was six months from start to end, so in fact I think this version IS the same one as September 1981, just way out in front due to publishing timelines! – Maury Markowitz May 2 at 19:04

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.