Speaking about J, performance and Linux, is it true that Windows is significantly faster? Or is there something wrong with my installation? Also when runnning windows J under wine on my linux PC I get a better performance than with native linux J:
NB. Native Linux JVERSION Engine: j701/2011-01-10/11:25 Library: 7.01.087 Platform: Linux 32 Installer: j701a_linux32.sh InstallPath: /home/ben/j701 time'locs=:nudge"1 locs' 1.43086e_5 time'locs=:pfn"1 locs' 7.41384e_6 time'locs=:(pfn f.)"1 locs' 3.77003e_6 time'locs=:pfns"1 locs' 3.7135e_5 NB. wine + Windows J JVERSION Engine: j701/2011-01-10/11:25 Library: 7.01.040 Platform: Win 32 Installer: j701a_win.exe InstallPath: z:/media/windows/documents and settings/bgorte/j701 time'locs=:nudge"1 locs' 1.09025e_5 time'locs=:pfn"1 locs' 5.56416e_6 time'locs=:(pfn f.)"1 locs' 2.88706e_6 time'locs=:pfns"1 locs' 2.77585e_5 Regards, Ben ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Raul Miller [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 06:44 To: Programming forum Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] On benchmarking results from J programming styles That sounds about right. The big caution I would place on interpreting these results is: "This won't necessarily apply for games implemented in J for Linux, where I intend to rely on the SDL and byte-per-pixel graphics layouts. Nonetheless, I retain the logic here, since it's representative of a real-world design decision which directly influences performance on the slower Kestrel architecture." If J is to perform well when applied in suboptimal fashion we'll need some way of representing the code which strips out a lot of the functionality (type checks, size checks, rank handling, maybe even overflow handling?), at least for the time-critical routines. (As much as possible, hoisting redundant operations out of primitives used in bottleneck loops.) Thanks, -- Raul On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 11:59 PM, William Tanksley, Jr <[email protected]> wrote: > A friend of mine wrote the following paper describing his attempt to > characterize the differences between a few different styles of > implementing the same code in J a few different ways -- explicit, > implicit, and a few variations. He also baselined against a Forth > implementation. > > I found his writeup very interesting. What do you think? > > http://sam-falvo.github.io/2014/01/05/subroutine-performance-in-j/ > > -Wm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
