#Bonjour Konstantin, Wednesday, December 17, 2003, 5:30:08 PM, you wrote:
> Hello Konstantin, > Wednesday, December 17, 2003, 7:14:02 PM, you wrote: KK>> Hello Cyphre, KK>> Wednesday, December 17, 2003, 6:40:03 PM, you wrote: C>>> Hi, C>>> I just had a quick look at C>>> http://www.garret.ru/~knizhnik/dybase/doc/dybase.html#comparison . Is Rebol C>>> really so slow or it is because the ported code isn't optimized to the C>>> language yet? KK>> Compare the following results: KK>> Rebol: 18 seconds KK>> h: make hash! [] KK>> start: now/time KK>> n: 100000 KK>> for i 1 n 1 [ KK>> append h i KK>> ] KK>> print ["Elapsed time for" n "records" (now/time - start)] KK>> ----------------------- KK>> Python: 0.37 seconds KK>> import time KK>> d = {} KK>> start = time.time() KK>> for i in range(0,100000): KK>> d[i] = i KK>> print 'Elapsed time: ', time.time() - start, ' seconds' KK>> -------------------- KK>> PHP: 1 seconds (rounded) KK>> <?php KK>> $start = time(); KK>> $arr = array(); KK>> for ($i = 0; $i < 10000; $i++) { KK>> $arr[$i] = $i; KK>> } KK>> print("Elapsed time: " . (time() - $start) . " seconds\n"); ?>>> > It was mistyping in PHP script - 10000 instead of 100000. > But with 100000 iterations reported time was the same - 1 second. > And if remove assignment to hash table and use just empty loop body > (pure speed of interpreter), then times for 10000000 (ten millions) > iteration are > Python: 14 seconds > PHP: 17 seconds > Rebol: 58 seconds > Also bad result (for Rebol), but 3 times slower is not 50 times slower... That's probably because 'for is written in REBOL (enter "?? for") ;-) start: now/time/precise i: 0 loop 10000000 [ i: i + 1 ] start - now/time/precise takes only 3.5 secs. -- To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
