A comparison of common programming languages used in bioinformatics

BackgroundThe performance of different programming languages has previously been benchmarked using abstract mathematical algorithms, but not using standard bioinformatics algorithms. We compared the memory usage and speed of execution for three standard bioinformatics methods, implemented in programs using one of six different programming languages. Programs for the Sellers algorithm, the Neighbor-Joining tree construction algorithm and an algorithm for parsing BLAST file outputs were implemented in C, C++, C#, Java, Perl and Python.ResultsImplementations in C and C++ were fastest and used the least memory. Programs in these languages generally contained more lines of code. Java and C# appeared to be a compromise between the flexibility of Perl and Python and the fast performance of C and C++. The relative performance of the tested languages did not change from Windows to Linux and no clear evidence of a faster operating system was found.Source code and additional information are available from http://www.bioinformatics.org/benchmark/ConclusionThis benchmark provides a comparison of six commonly used programming languages under two different operating systems. The overall comparison shows that a developer should choose an appropriate language carefully, taking into account the performance expected and the library availability for each language.

[1]  Christian Blouin,et al.  libcov: A C++ bioinformatic library to manipulate protein structures, sequence alignments and phylogeny , 2005, BMC Bioinformatics.

[2]  Gajendra P. S. Raghava,et al.  OXBench: A benchmark for evaluation of protein multiple sequence alignment accuracy , 2003, BMC Bioinformatics.

[3]  P. Sellers.  On the Theory and Computation of Evolutionary Distances , 1974 .

[4]  Lutz Prechelt,et al.  An empirical comparison of C, C++, Java, Perl, Python, Rexx, and Tcl for a search/string-processing program , 2000 .

[5]  Lutz Prechelt,et al.  An Empirical Comparison of Seven Programming Languages , 2000, Computer.

[6]  E. Myers,et al.  Basic local alignment search tool. , 1990, Journal of molecular biology.

[7]  H. Mangalam,et al.  The Bio* toolkits--a brief overview. , 2002, Briefings in bioinformatics.

[8]  O. Gascuel,et al.  A simple, fast, and accurate algorithm to estimate large phylogenies by maximum likelihood. , 2003, Systematic biology.

[9]  William Stafford Noble,et al.  Assessing computational tools for the discovery of transcription factor binding sites , 2005, Nature Biotechnology.

[10]  D. Posada.  Evaluation of methods for detecting recombination from DNA sequences: empirical data. , 2002, Molecular biology and evolution.

[11]  Rafael A. Irizarry,et al.  Comparison of Affymetrix GeneChip expression measures , 2006, Bioinform..

[12]  Liam J. McGuffin,et al.  Benchmarking consensus model quality assessment for protein fold recognition , 2007, BMC Bioinformatics.

[13]  Juan Miguel García-Gómez,et al.  BIOINFORMATICS APPLICATIONS NOTE Sequence analysis Manipulation of FASTQ data with Galaxy , 2005 .

[14]  N. Saitou,et al.  The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. , 1987, Molecular biology and evolution.

[15]  Rolf Apweiler,et al.  InterProScan - an integration platform for the signature-recognition methods in InterPro , 2001, Bioinform..

[16]  J. Felsenstein,et al.  A simulation comparison of phylogeny algorithms under equal and unequal evolutionary rates. , 1994, Molecular biology and evolution.