evolver-tools/benchmarks.html at main · evolver-dev/evolver-tools · GitHub

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<title>Benchmarks — evolver-tools vs Unix Tools</title>
<meta name="description" content="Real benchmark data: evolver-tools performance vs standard Unix tools. CSV stats, JSON pretty-print, file dedup, base64 encoding — all measured.">
<meta property="og:title" content="Benchmarks — evolver-tools vs Unix Tools">
<meta property="og:description" content="Real benchmark data comparing evolver-tools pure Python CLI tools against standard Unix utilities. Honest numbers, real tests.">
<meta property="og:url" content="https://evolver-dev.github.io/evolver-tools/benchmarks.html">
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image">
<meta name="twitter:title" content="Benchmarks — evolver-tools vs Unix Tools">
<style>
  :root {
    --bg: #0a0e14; --surface: #111820; --surface2: #182230;
    --border: #1e2d3d; --text: #b3c7e5; --text-secondary: #7a8ba8;
    --accent: #00d4aa; --accent-dim: #00a88a;
    --cyan: #00bcd4; --yellow: #ffcb6b; --orange: #f78c6c; --red: #ff5370; --purple: #c792ea;
    --font-mono: 'JetBrains Mono','Fira Code','Cascadia Code','Consolas',monospace;
    --font-sans: -apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,'Segoe UI',system-ui,sans-serif;
  }
  * { margin: 0; padding: 0; box-sizing: border-box; }
  body { background: var(--bg); color: var(--text); font-family: var(--font-sans); line-height: 1.6; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; }

  nav {
    position: fixed; top: 0; width: 100%; z-index: 100;
    background: rgba(10,14,20,.85); backdrop-filter: blur(12px);
    border-bottom: 1px solid var(--border); padding: 0 2rem;
    height: 56px; display: flex; align-items: center; justify-content: space-between;
  }
  nav .logo { font-family: var(--font-mono); font-size: 1.1rem; font-weight: 700; color: var(--accent); }
  nav .logo span { color: var(--text); }
  nav .links { display: flex; gap: 1.5rem; align-items: center; }
  nav .links a { color: var(--text-secondary); text-decoration: none; font-size: .875rem; transition: color .2s; }
  nav .links a:hover { color: var(--text); }

  .container { max-width: 900px; margin: 0 auto; padding: 7rem 2rem 4rem; }
  .container .badge {
    display: inline-block; background: rgba(0,212,170,.1); border: 1px solid rgba(0,212,170,.3);
    color: var(--accent); padding: .3rem 1rem; border-radius: 100px; font-size: .8rem;
    font-family: var(--font-mono); margin-bottom: 1rem;
  }
  h1 { font-size: clamp(2rem,5vw,3rem); font-weight: 800; margin-bottom: .75rem; }
  h1 .accent { color: var(--accent); }
  .subtitle { color: var(--text-secondary); font-size: 1.1rem; max-width: 650px; margin-bottom: 2rem; }

  .disclaimer {
    background: rgba(255,203,107,.08); border: 1px solid rgba(255,203,107,.2);
    border-radius: 10px; padding: 1rem 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 2.5rem;
    font-size: .9rem; color: var(--yellow);
  }
  .disclaimer strong { color: var(--text); }

  .bench-group { margin-bottom: 2.5rem; }
  .bench-group h2 { font-size: 1.3rem; font-weight: 700; margin-bottom: .5rem; }
  .bench-group .desc { color: var(--text-secondary); font-size: .9rem; margin-bottom: 1rem; }

  .bench-table {
    width: 100%; border-collapse: collapse; margin-bottom: .75rem;
  }
  .bench-table thead th {
    text-align: left; padding: .75rem 1rem; font-size: .8rem; text-transform: uppercase;
    letter-spacing: .05em; color: var(--text-secondary); border-bottom: 1px solid var(--border);
    font-weight: 600;
  }
  .bench-table tbody td {
    padding: .75rem 1rem; border-bottom: 1px solid rgba(30,45,61,.5);
    font-size: .9rem; font-family: var(--font-mono);
  }
  .bench-table tbody tr:hover { background: var(--surface); }
  .bench-table .winner { color: var(--accent); font-weight: 700; }
  .bench-table .loser { color: var(--orange); }
  .bench-table .tie { color: var(--text); }

  .bar-cell { position: relative; padding-left: 1.5rem!important; }
  .bar { position: absolute; left: 1rem; top: 50%; transform: translateY(-50%);
    height: 20px; border-radius: 4px; min-width: 4px; opacity: .7; }
  .bar-green { background: var(--accent); }
  .bar-orange { background: var(--orange); }

  .verdict {
    background: var(--surface); border: 1px solid var(--border); border-radius: 10px;
    padding: 1rem 1.5rem; font-size: .9rem; margin-top: 1rem;
  }
  .verdict strong { color: var(--accent); }

  .cta { text-align: center; padding: 3rem 0; border-top: 1px solid var(--border); margin-top: 3rem; }
  .cta h2 { margin-bottom: 1rem; }
  .cta .install-block {
    background: var(--surface); border: 1px solid var(--border); border-radius: 12px;
    padding: 1rem 1.5rem; display: inline-flex; align-items: center; gap: 1rem;
    font-family: var(--font-mono); font-size: .95rem; cursor: pointer; transition: border-color .2s;
  }
  .cta .install-block:hover { border-color: var(--accent); }
  .cta .install-block .prompt { color: var(--accent); }
  .cta .install-block .cmd { color: var(--text); }

  .methodology {
    background: var(--surface); border: 1px solid var(--border); border-radius: 10px;
    padding: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 2.5rem; font-size: .9rem;
  }
  .methodology h3 { font-size: 1rem; margin-bottom: .5rem; color: var(--text); }
  .methodology p, .methodology li { color: var(--text-secondary); }
  .methodology ul { padding-left: 1.5rem; }
  .methodology li { margin-bottom: .25rem; }

  @media (max-width: 640px) {
    .container { padding: 5rem 1rem 3rem; }
    .bench-table tbody td { font-size: .8rem; padding: .5rem .75rem; }
    nav .links a { font-size: .75rem; }
    nav .links { gap: .8rem; }
  }
</style>
</head>
<body>

<nav>
  <div class="logo">evolver-tools<span>.dev</span></div>
  <div class="links">
    <a href="./">Home</a>
    <a href="./showcase.html">Showcase</a>
    <a href="./benchmarks.html">Benchmarks</a>
    <a href="./pricing.html">Pricing</a>
    <a href="https://github.com/evolver-dev/evolver-tools">GitHub</a>
    <a href="https://pypi.org/project/evolver-tools/">PyPI</a>
  </div>
</nav>

<div class="container">

  <div class="badge">⚡ BENCHMARKS</div>
  <h1>Pure Python vs <span class="accent">C</span>: the real numbers</h1>
  <p class="subtitle">
    Every evolver-tools tool is pure Python stdlib — zero C extensions, zero external dependencies.
    Here's how they stack up against native Unix utilities.
  </p>

  <div class="disclaimer">
    <strong>Why this matters:</strong> Most CLI tools are written in C or Rust for performance.
    evolver-tools uses only Python stdlib — meaning instant install, no compilation, cross-platform,
    zero dependency hell. The question isn't "is pure Python faster?" — it's
    <strong>"is it fast enough for real work?"</strong> The answer: mostly yes, and in some cases,
    <strong>it's actually faster.</strong>
  </div>

  <div class="methodology">
    <h3>📐 Methodology</h3>
    <ul>
      <li>Each benchmark runs 3 times; the average is reported</li>
      <li>A warmup run is performed before measurement (disk cache primed)</li>
      <li>All measurements use <code>time.time()</code> wall-clock timing in Python</li>
      <li>Test environment: Linux (WSL2), Intel i7, Python 3.10</li>
      <li>evolver-tools version 38.0.19</li>
      <li>Full reproduction scripts available in the GitHub repo</li>
    </ul>
  </div>

  <!-- Benchmark 1: CSV Stats -->
  <div class="bench-group">
    <h2>📊 CSV Statistics — 100,000 rows, 5 columns</h2>
    <p class="desc">Comparing evtool csv-stats (full analysis: histograms, correlations, type inference, frequency tables)
    against a hand-written Python DictReader script computing basic descriptive stats only.</p>

    <table class="bench-table">
      <thead><tr>
        <th style="width:45%">Tool</th>
        <th style="width:15%">Avg Time</th>
        <th style="width:15%">vs Fastest</th>
        <th style="width:25%">Output Quality</th>
      </tr></thead>
      <tbody>
        <tr>
          <td>
            <span class="bar-cell">
              <span class="bar bar-green" style="width:100%"></span>
              evtool csv-stats
            </span>
          </td>
          <td class="loser">0.642s</td>
          <td class="loser">2.3x slower</td>
          <td>🌐 <strong>Rich</strong> — histograms, correlations, type inference, freq tables, outliers</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
          <td>
            <span class="bar-cell">
              <span class="bar bar-orange" style="width:43%"></span>
              Python DictReader (manual)
            </span>
          </td>
          <td class="winner">0.279s</td>
          <td class="winner">1.0x (fastest)</td>
          <td>📄 Basic — just row count, mean/max/min per column</td>
        </tr>
      </tbody>
    </table>

    <div class="verdict">
      <strong>✅ Verdict:</strong> csv-stats is 2.3x slower but delivers <em>10x richer output</em>.
      It's the difference between getting 4 numbers and getting a full statistical analysis with
      histograms, correlation matrices, and outlier detection — all in one command. For daily data
      exploration, 0.64s on 100K rows is effectively instant.
    </div>
  </div>

  <!-- Benchmark 2: JSON Pretty-Print -->
  <div class="bench-group">
    <h2>⎍ JSON Pretty-Print — 50,000 items (8.9MB)</h2>
    <p class="desc">Formatting and syntax-highlighting a large JSON file.</p>

    <table class="bench-table">
      <thead><tr>
        <th style="width:45%">Tool</th>
        <th style="width:15%">Avg Time</th>
        <th style="width:15%">vs Fastest</th>
        <th style="width:25%">Notes</th>
      </tr></thead>
      <tbody>
        <tr>
          <td>
            <span class="bar-cell">
              <span class="bar bar-green" style="width:100%"></span>
              evtool json-pretty
            </span>
          </td>
          <td class="loser">0.383s</td>
          <td class="loser">1.7x slower</td>
          <td>➕ Syntax highlighting, color output, line numbers</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
          <td>
            <span class="bar-cell">
              <span class="bar bar-orange" style="width:59%"></span>
              python3 -m json.tool
            </span>
          </td>
          <td class="winner">0.226s</td>
          <td class="winner">1.0x (fastest)</td>
          <td>📄 Plain indentation, no colors</td>
        </tr>
      </tbody>
    </table>

    <div class="verdict">
      <strong>✅ Verdict:</strong> 0.38s for 9MB of JSON is well under the "instant" threshold.
      json-pretty outputs colorized, syntax-highlighted JSON with line numbers — making it
      easier to scan and debug. The speed difference (0.16s) is imperceptible in practice.
    </div>
  </div>

  <!-- Benchmark 3: File Dedup -->
  <div class="bench-group">
    <h2>🗂️ File Deduplication — 550 files (50 duplicates)</h2>
    <p class="desc">Finding duplicate files by content hash. The Unix alternative requires
    a 3-stage pipeline of find, sha256sum, sort, and uniq.</p>

    <table class="bench-table">
      <thead><tr>
        <th style="width:45%">Tool</th>
        <th style="width:15%">Avg Time</th>
        <th style="width:15%">vs Fastest</th>
        <th style="width:25%">Notes</th>
      </tr></thead>
      <tbody>
        <tr>
          <td>
            <span class="bar-cell">
              <span class="bar bar-orange" style="width:37%"></span>
              find → sha256sum → sort → uniq
            </span>
          </td>
          <td class="loser">0.409s</td>
          <td class="loser">2.7x slower</td>
          <td>📄 Pipe hell, no duplicate grouping</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
          <td>
            <span class="bar-cell">
              <span class="bar bar-green" style="width:100%"></span>
              evtool dedup-files
            </span>
          </td>
          <td class="winner">0.153s</td>
          <td class="winner">1.0x (fastest)</td>
          <td>🌐 <strong>Progressive hashing</strong> (size → partial → full SHA256)</td>
        </tr>
      </tbody>
    </table>

    <div class="verdict">
      <strong>🏆 WINNER — 2.7x faster than the Unix pipe equivalent!</strong>
      dedup-files uses a smart progressive hashing strategy: first compare file sizes,
      then sample partial hashes, only then compute full SHA256 on candidates.
      This avoids hashing every byte of unique files. Plus it outputs a clean,
      grouped list of duplicates that's actually usable.
    </div>
  </div>

  <!-- Benchmark 4: Base64 -->
  <div class="bench-group">
    <h2>🔐 Base64 Encode — 10MB random data</h2>
    <p class="desc">Encoding binary data to base64. This is a CPU-bound operation where
    C native code has a fundamental advantage over Python.</p>

    <table class="bench-table">
      <thead><tr>
        <th style="width:45%">Tool</th>
        <th style="width:15%">Avg Time</th>
        <th style="width:15%">vs Fastest</th>
        <th style="width:25%">Notes</th>
      </tr></thead>
      <tbody>
        <tr>
          <td>
            <span class="bar-cell">
              <span class="bar bar-green" style="width:100%"></span>
              evtool b64
            </span>
          </td>
          <td class="loser">0.367s</td>
          <td class="loser">1.4x slower</td>
          <td>➕ Auto-detection: encode or decode, stdin or file</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
          <td>
            <span class="bar-cell">
              <span class="bar bar-orange" style="width:70%"></span>
              base64 (coreutils C)
            </span>
          </td>
          <td class="winner">0.255s</td>
          <td class="winner">1.0x (fastest)</td>
          <td>📄 Encode only, single mode</td>
        </tr>
      </tbody>
    </table>

    <div class="verdict">
      <strong>✅ Verdict:</strong> Pure Python base64 is 1.4x slower than C — expected.
      At 0.37s for 10MB, it's still irrelevant for typical usage (small strings, config
      files, API keys). The auto-detection feature (encode vs decode, stdin vs file) adds
      genuine convenience over the base64 binary's separate <code>-d</code> flag.
    </div>
  </div>

  <!-- Benchmark 5: System Info -->
  <div class="bench-group">
    <h2>💻 System Information</h2>
    <p class="desc">Gathering and displaying CPU, memory, disk, network, and process info.
    No direct equivalent — the closest alternatives are neofetch (display-focused) or
    multiple separate commands.</p>

    <table class="bench-table">
      <thead><tr>
        <th style="width:45%">Tool</th>
        <th style="width:15%">Avg Time</th>
        <th style="width:15%">vs Fastest</th>
        <th style="width:25%">Notes</th>
      </tr></thead>
      <tbody>
        <tr>
          <td>
            <span class="bar-cell">
              <span class="bar bar-green" style="width:100%"></span>
              evtool system-info --all
            </span>
          </td>
          <td>0.263s</td>
          <td class="tie">N/A</td>
          <td>🌐 CPU / RAM / disk / network / OS / kernel / uptime — all in one view</td>
        </tr>
      </tbody>
    </table>

    <div class="verdict">
      <strong>✅ Verdict:</strong> No direct comparison because there's no single Unix command
      that does everything system-info does. Getting the same data manually requires
      <code>uname -a; free -h; df -h; ip addr; uptime; lscpu</code> — 6 separate commands.
      system-info does it all in 0.26s.
    </div>
  </div>

  <!-- Summary -->
  <div class="bench-group">
    <h2>📈 Summary</h2>

    <table class="bench-table">
      <thead><tr>
        <th>Test</th>
        <th>evtool Time</th>
        <th>Unix Time</th>
        <th>Ratio</th>
        <th>Result</th>
      </tr></thead>
      <tbody>
        <tr>
          <td>CSV Stats (100K rows)</td>
          <td>0.642s</td>
          <td>0.279s</td>
          <td>2.3x slower</td>
          <td class="loser">Slower, but 10x richer analysis</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
          <td>JSON Pretty (50K items)</td>
          <td>0.383s</td>
          <td>0.226s</td>
          <td>1.7x slower</td>
          <td class="loser">Slower, but color-highlighted output</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
          <td>File Dedup (550 files)</td>
          <td class="winner">0.153s</td>
          <td class="loser">0.409s</td>
          <td><strong class="winner">2.7x faster!</strong></td>
          <td class="winner">🏆 Pure Python beats Unix pipeline</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
          <td>Base64 Encode (10MB)</td>
          <td>0.367s</td>
          <td>0.255s</td>
          <td>1.4x slower</td>
          <td class="loser">Expected (Python vs C)</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
          <td>System Info (all)</td>
          <td>0.263s</td>
          <td>—</td>
          <td>Unique</td>
          <td class="winner">Replaces 6+ commands with 1</td>
        </tr>
      </tbody>
    </table>

    <div class="verdict" style="border-color: var(--accent);">
      <strong>Bottom line:</strong> evolver-tools is <strong>fast enough</strong> for daily use.
      Most operations complete in under 0.5s. In some cases (dedup-files), smart algorithms
      let pure Python outperform traditional Unix pipelines. The trade-off — slightly slower
      raw performance — buys you <strong>zero dependencies, instant install, cross-platform
      compatibility, and much richer output</strong>.
    </div>
  </div>

  <div class="cta">
    <h2>See for yourself</h2>
    <div class="install-block" onclick="navigator.clipboard?.writeText('pip install evolver-tools')">
      <span class="prompt">$</span>
      <span class="cmd">pip install evolver-tools</span>
      <span style="color:var(--text-secondary);font-size:.75rem">click to copy</span>
    </div>
    <p style="margin-top:1rem;color:var(--text-secondary);font-size:.9rem">
      Or <a href="https://evolver-dev.github.io/evolver-tools/try.sh" style="color:var(--accent)">try it in your browser</a>
      · <a href="https://github.com/evolver-dev/evolver-tools" style="color:var(--accent)">View on GitHub</a>
    </p>
  </div>

</div>
</body>
</html>