|
From: | Arvid Rosén |
Subject: | Re: |
Date: | Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:07:08 +0100 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 1.4 (Windows/20050908) |
Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
Is this really a real-world problem? Do you people often run into situations where the interpreter speed is the limiting factor. I don't think I do, but I guess it depend on what kind of problems you are working on. I just want to say that running empty for-loops is certainly not the way to test the quality of Octave as a whole and it might not be a good way to test the interpreter either. If you really depend on tiny for-loops, you should probably rewrite your code anyway.Of all the complaints I have heard about Octave, its slowness is the one that stings the most painfully. Cuts deep. Real deep. So, I'm interested to know, any idea why this is happening? Why would a simple for loop with no code to execute except running through all the values of its iterator take orders of magnitude more in Octave than in Matlab? Where are these benchmarks?
/Arvid ------------------------------------------------------------- Octave is freely available under the terms of the GNU GPL. Octave's home on the web: http://www.octave.org How to fund new projects: http://www.octave.org/funding.html Subscription information: http://www.octave.org/archive.html -------------------------------------------------------------
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |