Hello, I want to share with you the result of a recent test I did. I was curious how much slow is libmatheval compared to some other "more optimized" software. I found a similar project, named "Formulc". You can find it here
http://www.cs.brandeis.edu/~hhelf/formu/formulc.html it does not implement the symbolic derivative neither the automatic recognition of variables, both featured in libmatheval. I'm not an expert of this kind of coding, but based on a previous posting by Alex (it's reported below) I expected quite poor libmatheval performances. Well, I discovered that it is not the case! Consider this function f = exp(x^2+2*x+1.) + sin(3*tan(x))^(3.2) + 0.1 the computation of f on 1,000,0000 random numbers in [0,1] gave this results on my machine at home direct: 1.450000 sec formulc: 2.290000 sec matheval: 2.420000 sec where "direct" means the use of a coded C function. As you can see, the speed of libmatheval is quite comparable to the speed of formulc. I tried various functions, always obtaining similar results. In conclusions, the features implemented in libmatheval do not seem to lead to an excessive slow-down in the generated code. Given its extra-features, I would consider it the clear winner. Any comment? G. On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:49:05 +0100 "Aleksandar B. Samardzic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > in C-like expressions. Thus, symbolic part of the library is becoming > baggage, because some of these proposed features have no symbolic > counterparts at all and on the other side calculating expressions could > be implemented more efficiently without syntax tree, that is in turn > necessary for symbolic calculations (so adding kind of "not-implemented"
pgpAmaBLqvNrD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Bug-libmatheval mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-libmatheval
