The question is not whether the results are the same - we already get the right results.
The question is whether the results are faster to obtain. Lazy is only faster when the results are discarded and not used - it gives the appearance of being faster, but makes system performance harder to reason about. Thanks, -- Raul On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 3:33 PM, james faure <james.fa...@epitech.eu> wrote: > Just about every single special combination is equalled by lazy evaluation - > with the very rare exceptions being those that use a completely different > algorithm. > > 'in an interpreter time spent on code analysis is a cost to be minimized': > This is extremely superficial, not even because the time spent analyzing code > is negligible compared to execution time, with potential for big returns, but > because generators have nothing to do with code analysis. > > Your second point is also off topic. > > ________________________________ > From: Chat <chat-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com> on behalf of Raul Miller > <rauldmil...@gmail.com> > Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 8:34:59 PM > To: Chat forum > Subject: Re: [Jchat] Where is J going ? > > You are talking about the use of generators as an array type, which I > gather was the gist of your proposal in the propositions thread? > > ... > > I am looking forward to seeing your work on this, and the benchmarks > on its performance. > > But I do not see how an implementation of that approach would be an > adequate replacement for most of the optimizations documented on the > http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Vocabulary/SpecialCombinations page. > > And you did say "The SC based system has has got to go". > > Note also: > > (*) in an interpreter time spent on code analysis is a cost to be > minimized (though you can get away with more of this when working on > large data sets and inefficient code than you can on small data sets > and efficient code), and > > (*) the combinations chosen here were picked in part because they show > up relatively frequently in real code, and in part because order of > magnitude performance improvements were easy to implement. > > Thanks, > > -- > Raul > > > > On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 2:09 PM, james faure <james.fa...@epitech.eu> wrote: >> Since our discussion was in the source forum, I'll repeat myself here: >> >> Special Combination's require special code and are incapable of optimizing >> anything other than an extremely specific case. >> >> How you managed to think I don't like optimizations is beyond me - of course >> SC's are better than nothing, that's not the point. >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Chat <chat-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com> on behalf of Raul Miller >> <rauldmil...@gmail.com> >> Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 7:48:02 PM >> To: Chat forum >> Subject: Re: [Jchat] Where is J going ? >> >> Yes. >> >> Thanks, >> >> -- >> Raul >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 1:40 PM, james faure <james.fa...@epitech.eu> wrote: >>> Is that a serious question ? After all the time I spent explaining the >>> alternative ? >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Chat <chat-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com> on behalf of Raul Miller >>> <rauldmil...@gmail.com> >>> Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 7:38:27 PM >>> To: Chat forum >>> Subject: Re: [Jchat] Where is J going ? >>> >>> Why do you think optimizations are bad? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> -- >>> Raul >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 1:30 PM, james faure <james.fa...@epitech.eu> wrote: >>>> I mean Special combination: >>>> http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Vocabulary/SpecialCombinations >>>> >>>> Vocabulary/SpecialCombinations - J >>>> Wiki<http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Vocabulary/SpecialCombinations> >>>> code.jsoftware.com >>>> J typically executes verbs one by one, right-to-left, each verb not >>>> knowing what is coming next a =: 1000 1000 ?@$ 0 NB. 1 million random >>>> values in a 1000 by 1000 ... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: Chat <chat-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com> on behalf of Brian Schott >>>> <schott.br...@gmail.com> >>>> Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 6:24:45 PM >>>> To: Chat forum >>>> Subject: Re: [Jchat] Where is J going ? >>>> >>>> I think it means stop_condition. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 9:36 AM, Devon McCormick <devon...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Again, I ask, in >>>>> " 4 The SC based system has has got to go... " >>>>> what is "SC based"? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
