Gustaf Rydevik wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Reading the wikipedia page on R, I stumbled across the following:
> http://fluff.info/blog/arch/0172.htm
>
> It does seem interesting that the C execution is that much slower from
> R than from a native C program. Could any of the more technically
> knowled
> "Paul" == Paul Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gustaf Rydevik wrote:
>> The author also have some thought-provoking opinions on R
>> being no-good and that you should write everything in C
> People used to say assembler, that's progress.
>From the FORTRAN Preliminary
which, symName, argConverters + nargs,
>> checkTypes ? checkTypes[nargs] : 0,
>> encname);
>> #ifdef R_MEMORY_PROFILING
>> if (TRACE(CAR(pargs)) && dup)
>> memt
[article: http://fluff.info/blog/arch/0172.htm ]
Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>
> If I followed Blair's advice and did everything in C, then
> development would take much longer, the code would be much buggier
> (even his example has bugs, and he admits it!!) and all those cases
> where R is fast
pargs), cargs[nargs]);
> #endif
> nargs++;
> }
>
> Thanks,
> Whit
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gustaf Rydevik
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 10:25 AM
>> To
Barry Rowlingson wrote:
> Gustaf Rydevik wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Reading the wikipedia page on R, I stumbled across the following:
>> http://fluff.info/blog/arch/0172.htm
>>
>> It does seem interesting that the C execution is that much slower from
>> R than from a native C program. Could any of
Gustaf Rydevik wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Reading the wikipedia page on R, I stumbled across the following:
> http://fluff.info/blog/arch/0172.htm
>
There are certainly situations where one would want to consider faster
solutions than interpreted languages but, having been through these
argument
Gustaf Rydevik wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Reading the wikipedia page on R, I stumbled across the following:
> http://fluff.info/blog/arch/0172.htm
>
> It does seem interesting that the C execution is that much slower from
> R than from a native C program. Could any of the more technically
> knowledge
Hello Gustaf, List.
Thanks Gustaf for your post!
well I am working pretty intensively with fisher.test() right now, as
some of you will know.
The comparison is not fair: R's fisher.test() does a whole
bunch of error checking and testing for the size of the
input matrix and assessing of other a
On 1/9/2008 10:25 AM, Gustaf Rydevik wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Reading the wikipedia page on R, I stumbled across the following:
> http://fluff.info/blog/arch/0172.htm
>
> It does seem interesting that the C execution is that much slower from
> R than from a native C program. Could any of the more
Gustaf Rydevik wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Reading the wikipedia page on R, I stumbled across the following:
> http://fluff.info/blog/arch/0172.htm
>
> It does seem interesting that the C execution is that much slower from
> R than from a native C program. Could any of the more technically
> knowled
nargs++;
}
Thanks,
Whit
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gustaf Rydevik
> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 10:25 AM
> To: r-help@r-project.org
> Subject: [R] An "R is slow"-article
>
> Hi
Hi all,
Reading the wikipedia page on R, I stumbled across the following:
http://fluff.info/blog/arch/0172.htm
It does seem interesting that the C execution is that much slower from
R than from a native C program. Could any of the more technically
knowledgeable people explain why this is so?
13 matches
Mail list logo