[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'.
