Re: [Bug-apl] Fun With Benchmarks

[Mike Duvos]

OK - I see the issue.

[3]  L1:→((I←I+1)⍴Z)/L2

It apparently dropped a character when I pasted.  That should be greater than or equal to rho Z.

Hopefully, that's the only error.  I can make an .atf available if it still doesn't run. 

Sorry about that.

On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Juergen Sauermann <address@hidden> wrote:

Hi Mike,

the only thing I am getting is:

INDEX ERROR+
TIMES[7]  Z←((¯1+⍴Z)⌊+/∧\'0'=Z)↓Z←D[⌽Z]
                                  ^^

Another question: are you running GNU APL on the same machine as IBM APL2
or under a GNU/Linux emulator like cygwin?

/// Jürgen

On 08/22/2015 06:24 AM, Mike Duvos wrote:

One more little benchmark, this time doing a variety of primitives.

      ⎕IO←0

     ∇
[0]   TIME X;TS
[1]   TS←⎕TS
[2]   ⍎X
[3]   (⍕(24 60 60 1000⊥¯4↑⎕TS-TS)÷1000),' Seconds.'
    ∇

    ∇
[0]   Z←SHOW X;I
[1]   Z←(I,50)⍴(50×I←⌈(⍴X)÷50)↑X←,X
    ∇

    ∇
[0]   Z←X TIMES Y;D;I;C
[1]   Z←+⌿(-⍳⍴X)⌽Z←((⍴X),(⍴X)+⍴Y)↑Z←(D⍳X←⌽,X)∘.×(D←'0123456789')⍳Y←⌽,Y
[2]   I←¯1◊C←0
[3]  L1:→((I←I+1)⍴Z)/L2
[4]   C←⌊(÷10)×Z[I]←Z[I]+C
[5]   Z[I]←10|Z[I]
[6]   →L1
[7]  L2:Z←((¯1+⍴Z)⌊+/∧\'0'=Z)↓Z←D[⌽Z]
    ∇

    ∇
[0]   Z←FACTORIAL N;I
[1]   Z←,'1'◊I←1
[2]  L1:→((I←I+1)>N)/0
[3]   Z←Z TIMES⍕I
[4]   →L1
    ∇

[IBM APL2]

      TIME 'SHOW FACTORIAL 300'
30605751221644063603537046129726862938858880417357
69994167767412594765331767168674655152914224775733
49939147888701726368864263907759003154226842927906
97455984122547693027195460400801221577625217685425
59653569035067887252643218962642993652045764488303
88909753943489625436053225980776521270822437639449
12012867867536830571229368194364995646049816645022
77165001851765464693401122260347297240663332585835
06870150169794168850353752137554910289126407157154
83028228493795263658014523523315693648223343679925
45940952768206080622328123873838808170496000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000                                  
2.078 Seconds.

[GNU APL]

      TIME 'SHOW FACTORIAL 300'
30605751221644063603537046129726862938858880417357
69994167767412594765331767168674655152914224775733
49939147888701726368864263907759003154226842927906
97455984122547693027195460400801221577625217685425
59653569035067887252643218962642993652045764488303
88909753943489625436053225980776521270822437639449
12012867867536830571229368194364995646049816645022
77165001851765464693401122260347297240663332585835
06870150169794168850353752137554910289126407157154
83028228493795263658014523523315693648223343679925
45940952768206080622328123873838808170496000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000                                  
52.547 Seconds.

I see these numbers, ~2 seconds and  ~52 seconds a lot, so I will conclude object-oriented APL is about 25 times as slow as fine-tuned machine language APL.  Not too bad a penalty for portability across a wide spectrum of CPU architectures and Operating Systems.

With modern commodity processors doing billion of instructions per second, most people probably won't even notice.