Hi Judd, Thanks for your response. I do not quite understand everything you say. I think that if you go for PDL::PP you end up compiling, makefiles, etc. This is NOT user friendly, so I think this solution does not compare well with other equivalent languages where you do NOT need to compile.
Xavier On 3/1/07, Judd Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think it should not. I don't think anyone that uses PDL seriously would consider using a perl-level for() loop through a big dataset like that. We all use PDL::PP and we mostly use Inline as well. If the benchmark is to represent what we actually experience, then we should go ahead and get rid of that for() loop and put in some PDL::PP code. If it _is_ considered cheating, then we should advise using pdl threading to precompute several of the * calcs before getting into the for loop. -Judd On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 15:39 +0200, Kaj Wiik wrote: > On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 07:32 +0000, Xavier Calbet wrote: > > > The results are the following: > > > > gcc 201 sec > > g77 201 sec > > PDL 651 sec > > IDL 694 sec > > MatLab 2738 sec > > Octave 2031 sec > > Would Inline Pdlpp considered cheating ;-)? > It would be interesting though.. > > Kaj > -- ____________________________ Judd Taylor Software Engineer Orbital Systems, Ltd. 8304 Esters Blvd, Suite 870 Irving, TX 75063-2209 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (469) 442-1767 x127
_______________________________________________ Perldl mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl
