Since LDA is often going to be used on unlabeled data, which is very abundant  I wanted an implementation that would work for extremely large corpa. Using a stochastic algorithm, the new data points can be streamed in from disk as needed  where as a normal Gibbs sampler requires all of the data to be in memory for every update.
Another benefit is that, since the LDA implementation uses relatively large minibatches of data, parallelism was fairly easy to get  where Gibbs samplers require considerably more work to scale across cores  let alone machines.
I recently performed a quick run of the LDA implementation in JSAT for a talk at work, and I figured I would share some of the results. I used the data from the recent KDD cup competition at Kaggle (249,555 documents), but instead of doing prediction I simply did topic modeling of the data. I arbitrarily chose to search for 100 topics and compared my implementation to the one in MALLET. Mallet is written in Java, uses doubles instead of floats, supports a parallel Gibbs sampler, and is written by a knowledgeable researcher in the field. JSAT is also Java and uses doubles instead of floats, so I thought the comparison would be on level ground.
First, one of the things I learned before was that using a large stoplist is critical to getting good results with LDA. Below are some of the topics I got when running JSAT's implementation with no stoplist.
of, the, their, will, in, students, these, a, have, skills, 
i, a, of, my, in, that, have, is, are, with 
stage, production, theatre, watercolor, watercolors, design, kindergrtners, pan, repeating, omnikin, 
instruments, band, sticks, percussion, bass, oil, playing, reeds, wood, scrapbook 
the, of, in, for, have, i, this, students, our, on, 
energy, earth, shakespeare, solar, cells, scientists, planet, sun, globe, ocean, 
to, students, in, and, a, my, technology, for, with, are, 
calculators, calculator, fish, calculus, graphs, dress, ii, high, clothes, classes, 
Some of the topics kinda make sense, but I sincerely doubt the relevance of fish to calculators and graphs. Many of the useless topics contain only common words like "i, a, of" and so on. To make my comparison as fair as possible, I opted to simply use the same stoplist that MALLET used. Running the code, I then got very similar results  and matched up some of the "same" topics from MALLET and JSAT to show they are both learning the same thing.
MALLET

JSAT

reading readers read comprehension fluency reader struggling level improve independent  students, reading, read, listening, readers, center, stories, love, fluency, comprehension 
language english learners spanish speak vocabulary speaking arts esl bilingual  language, english, spanish, learners, speak, learning, learn, words, speaking, class, 
problem students calculators problems math solving solve algebra graphing mathematics  math, concepts, algebra, mathematics, understanding, real, graphing, mathematical, graph, abstract, 
supplies paper basic pencils school markers year notebooks pencil colored  supplies, paper, school, pencils, art, markers, pencil, basic, create, projects, 
disabilities autism sensory special skills social motor fine severe emotional  learning, classroom, learn, skills, technology, education, learners, interactive, lessons, disabilities, 
fulfillment including cost donorschoose org www http html htm shipping  fulfillment, htm, cost, including, donorschoose, shipping, org, www, http, html 
equipment physical education activity play fitness active activities exercise balls  active activities exercise balls physical, equipment, balls, sports, jump, ball, recess, gym, playground, fit, 
While not identical, its clear they are the same topics. Since LDA is not a convex problem, and both Gibbs sampling and SGD can hit local optima  we wouldn't expect perfectly identical topics either.
So now we know that both produce comparable results, so why choose the stochastic implementation in JSAT over MALLET? Besides the aforementioned benefits to stochastic implementations in general, below are the runtime results (sans IO) for both code bases. These were run on a machine with 8 cores.
 MALLET, single threaded: 37 minutes 21 seconds
 MALLET, multi threaded: 8 minutes 25 seconds
 JSAT, single threaded: 28 minutes 7 seconds
 JSAT, multi threaded: 4 minutes 30 seconds
From these numbers, we can see that stochastic LDA in JSAT is faster to begin with than Gibbs sampling in MALLET. In additional, MALLET's multithreaded speedup was only 4.4x compared to 6.2x in JSAT. So we can expect better performance scalability as we throw more cores at the problem.
Its possible to increase the scalability of JSAT further, but for now I plan on leaving the code in its current and simpler form. In general the algorithm in JSAT is very good for large corpa, but the Gibbs samplers are probably better for smaller datasets. The computational complexity will scale linearly with the number of topics.
The stoplist issue is somewhat interesting. At least for the stochastic implementation, a nontrivial amount of work occurs in each batch update  and stop words tend to be the most common words. JSAT without the stop words removed took about 3 times longer to run.
Its also possible to improve the results by using TFIDF weighting instead of stop words  but that still has the slowdown since we are considering the words, and it has the issue of not mapping well to the model LDA uses.
Currently I'm not sure what I want the API of LDA and future topic models to look like, so it doesn't implement any interface at the moment. Hopefully as I get more opportunities to apply LDA and implement other algorithms I'll figure out what is best.