Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

[REBOL] Re: Report on WinCE Rebol --- Speed Comparison

From: dness:home at: 28-Jun-2001 0:24

Larry Palmiter wrote:
> Hi David, > > I am curious about your results for Core and View on Windows. I defined the > following tree-recursive fibonacci function at the console using a 450MHz > PIII: > > >> fib: func [n][either n < 2 [n] [(fib n - 2) + (fib n - 1)]] > > For Core 2.5.0.3.1 > > >> t: now/time/precise fib 25 now/time/precise - t > == 0:00:01.32 > >> t: now/time/precise fib 35 now/time/precise - t > == 0:02:53.78 > > For View 1.2.1.3.1 > > >> t: now/time/precise fib 25 now/time/precise - t > == 0:00:01.32 > >> t: now/time/precise fib 35 now/time/precise - t > == 0:02:47.03 > > So the times are pretty much the same for View and Core. Your timings show > View to be noticeably slower and even the 800MHz times are slower than mine. > Wondering how you did your timing? Did it include starting the exe's? > > -Larry >
For the view cases, I clearly brought up the console and then did a `do %fib.r' that contained the test code. Similarly on the iPAQ. For the `core' cases, I don't remember if I did a `rebol fib.r' or rather a `rebol' followed by a `do %fib.r'. In my timings I didn't use `precise' as I didn't know about it (until I read your note, that is). For comparison, bringing up a `view' console and then running the code as you present it directly on my 800mhz machine produces 0.49 sec (compared to your 1.32) and 57.84 sec compared to your 2:47.83, which suggests a bit more than the 450/800 comparison one might expect, but nevertheless is in the same `ball park'.