> I don't have octave (on the same machine) to compare these with. > And I don't have MatLab at all. So I can't provide a comparison > on that front, I'm afraid. > Ted. >
Just to add some timings, I was running 1000 repetitions (adding up to a=1001) on a notebook with core 2 duo T7200 R 2.8.1 on Fedora 10: mean 0.10967, st.dev 0.005238 R 2.8.1 on Windows Vista: mean 0.13245, st.dev 0.00943 Octave 3.0.3 on Fedora 10: mean 0.097276, st.dev 0.0041296 Matlab 2008b on Windows Vista: 0.0626 st.dev 0.005 But I am not sure how representative this is with that very simple example. To compare Matlab speed with R a kind of benchmark suite is necessary. Like: http://www.sciviews.org/benchmark/index.html but that one is very old. I would guess that there did not change much: sometimes R is faster, sometimes not. This difference between the Windows and Linux timing is probably not really relevant: when I was comparing the timings of my usual analysis there was no difference between the two operating systems. (count data and time series stuff) Cheers Stefan ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
