William Stein wrote:
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
<david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote:
Right now it takes over 1.5 seconds every time.
wst...@sage:~$ time sage -c "print factor(2010)"
2 * 3 * 5 * 67
real 0m1.535s
user 0m1.140s
sys 0m0.460s
Personaly I don't find that too excessive for a large tool. How long does
Gimp take to start?
That's irrelevant. What matters is how long Maple, Mathematica,
Matlab, Maxima, Pari, and Magma take to start.
After repeatedly running the command on sage.math, this is how things stabilize:
Pari 0.030s
Python 0.046s
Maple 0.111s
Maxima 0.456s
Mathematica 0.524s
Matlab 0.844s
Magma 0.971s
Sage 1.658s
Fair point.
Personally I have a bit of a problem understanding why I need to worry about a
program starting up in less than 2 s, when I might run something on it which
will take at least one order of magnitude longer, and probably several order of
magnitudes longer.
wst...@sage:~$ time echo "2+2;" | math
Mathematica 6.0 for Linux x86 (64-bit)
Copyright 1988-2007 Wolfram Research, Inc.
In[1]:=
In[2]:=
real 0m0.524s
Either my Sun Ultra 27 is significantly quicker than sage.math, or Wolfram
Research have made significant improvements, since 6.0, as version 7.0 computes
that in less than half the time.
drkir...@hawk:~$ time echo "2+2;" | math
Mathematica 7.0 for Sun Solaris x86 (64-bit)
Copyright 1988-2009 Wolfram Research, Inc.
In[1]:=
In[2]:=
real 0m0.251s
user 0m0.166s
sys 0m0.121s
drkir...@hawk:~$
For something a bit more taxing:
drkir...@hawk:~$ time echo "Factorial[10000000];" | math
Mathematica 7.0 for Sun Solaris x86 (64-bit)
Copyright 1988-2009 Wolfram Research, Inc.
In[1]:=
In[2]:=
real 0m20.699s
user 0m20.491s
sys 0m0.207s
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
