Interesting. I have a feeling that the majority of the time taken is in copying the arrays prior to every operation. I'll run it using cachegrind tonight to see if I'm right.
Regards, Elias On 22 Aug 2015 12:24, "Mike Duvos" <m...@wolf359.net> wrote: > One more little benchmark, this time doing a variety of primitives. > > ⎕IO←0 > > ∇ > [0] TIME X;TS > [1] TS←⎕TS > [2] ⍎X > [3] (⍕(24 60 60 1000⊥¯4↑⎕TS-TS)÷1000),' Seconds.' > ∇ > > ∇ > [0] Z←SHOW X;I > [1] Z←(I,50)⍴(50×I←⌈(⍴X)÷50)↑X←,X > ∇ > > ∇ > [0] Z←X TIMES Y;D;I;C > [1] Z←+⌿(-⍳⍴X)⌽Z←((⍴X),(⍴X)+⍴Y)↑Z←(D⍳X←⌽,X)∘.×(D←'0123456789')⍳Y←⌽,Y > [2] I←¯1◊C←0 > [3] L1:→((I←I+1)⍴Z)/L2 > [4] C←⌊(÷10)×Z[I]←Z[I]+C > [5] Z[I]←10|Z[I] > [6] →L1 > [7] L2:Z←((¯1+⍴Z)⌊+/∧\'0'=Z)↓Z←D[⌽Z] > ∇ > > ∇ > [0] Z←FACTORIAL N;I > [1] Z←,'1'◊I←1 > [2] L1:→((I←I+1)>N)/0 > [3] Z←Z TIMES⍕I > [4] →L1 > ∇ > > [IBM APL2] > > TIME 'SHOW FACTORIAL 300' > 30605751221644063603537046129726862938858880417357 > 69994167767412594765331767168674655152914224775733 > 49939147888701726368864263907759003154226842927906 > 97455984122547693027195460400801221577625217685425 > 59653569035067887252643218962642993652045764488303 > 88909753943489625436053225980776521270822437639449 > 12012867867536830571229368194364995646049816645022 > 77165001851765464693401122260347297240663332585835 > 06870150169794168850353752137554910289126407157154 > 83028228493795263658014523523315693648223343679925 > 45940952768206080622328123873838808170496000000000 > 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 > 000000000000000 > 2.078 Seconds. > > [GNU APL] > > TIME 'SHOW FACTORIAL 300' > 30605751221644063603537046129726862938858880417357 > 69994167767412594765331767168674655152914224775733 > 49939147888701726368864263907759003154226842927906 > 97455984122547693027195460400801221577625217685425 > 59653569035067887252643218962642993652045764488303 > 88909753943489625436053225980776521270822437639449 > 12012867867536830571229368194364995646049816645022 > 77165001851765464693401122260347297240663332585835 > 06870150169794168850353752137554910289126407157154 > 83028228493795263658014523523315693648223343679925 > 45940952768206080622328123873838808170496000000000 > 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 > 000000000000000 > 52.547 Seconds. > > I see these numbers, ~2 seconds and ~52 seconds a lot, so I will conclude > object-oriented APL is about 25 times as slow as fine-tuned machine > language APL. Not too bad a penalty for portability across a wide spectrum > of CPU architectures and Operating Systems. > > With modern commodity processors doing billion of instructions per second, > most people probably won't even notice. > > >
