Newsgroups: comp.lang.apl
Path: watmath!watserv2.uwaterloo.ca!torn!spool.mu.edu!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!psinntp!juliet!news
From: jja@fnbc.com (Joseph Alotta)
Subject: performance update, apologies offered
Message-ID: <1993Jan8.151656.15252@fnbc.com>
Keywords: performance, j
Sender: news@fnbc.com
Organization: First National Bank Of Chicago, Chicago IL, USA
References: <1993Jan7.211247.3714@nic.csu.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 15:16:56 GMT
Lines: 43


i retested j vs. z language and found the results to be much
more encouraging.

the following tests were made on the same machine with the j6,
(i had tested j5 earlier).

j is still some 37% slower, but i think the difference can be 
partially accounted for by the fact that j allows complex numbers
and z does not, and j allows n-dimensional arrays where z allows
up to 3 dimensions.

amy{jja}15: cat ztest
a=iota(1e6);
+/a;
amy{jja}16: cat jtest
a=. i. 1e6
+/a
amy{jja}17: time zlang ztest
5.000005e+11
3.5u 0.8s 0:04 95% 0+0k 2+0io 0pf+0w
amy{jja}18: time j < jtest
4.999995e11
2.2u 1.1s 0:03 96% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
J6   Copyright (c) 1990-1992, Iverson Software Inc.  All Rights Reserved.

   1.1 % 0.8
1.375

sorry for causing grief.  j is a super language and i want to 
thank those who have made it possible.


joe.


==============================================================
! joe alotta                                    jja@fnbc.com !                                               
!                                             (312) 732-3439 !
!                                                            !
! "The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing." !
! Dr. George Sweeney                                         !
==============================================================
