This benchmark has been misleading for a while. It was originally made to demonstrate how JIT compilers can do all sorts of crazy stuff to your code - especially LuaJIT - and was meant to be a starting point of discussion about what exactly LuaJIT does and how.
As a result, its not indicative of what its performance may be on more realistic data. Differences can be expected because
- the text will not consist of hard-coded constants
- the number of words (and therefore the dictionary) would be larger, and JIT compilers for JS and Lua often have special optimizations for small dictionaries/tables
- the words wont be pre-split, and allocating new words adds significant performance penalty (in that case a trie would probably outperform other approaches)
@nurettin - the C++ version only does one hash lookup per string per iteration -- unlike in javascript, accessing an uninitialised entry in the map initialises it to zero (as that's what
int
's default constructor does), so you can just increment without checking it first.