On Aug 17, 1:32 am, Nicolas Oury <nicolas.o...@gmail.com> wrote: > I was referring to the rules of the benchmark game. When you benchmark > language, using another language is not fair. > > If you were to do your own program, of course you could use Java. > However, in the particular circumstance, it is a bit annoying to use > Java just to create a data structure type. > Ah, that makes more sense re the "cheating" then. Your insight for array range check elimination got me thinking - why can't the accessor macros (posx, etc) that use aset/aget have their ranges eliminated by the JVM? After all, it should be a simple constant fold. I found another 2-3x speed up by coercing the indexes with (int x), ie (defmacro mass [p] `(double (aget ~p (int 0)))) I don't have the Java version running on my machine, but I saw runtimes go from 833ms to 295ms for 100000 iterations, a 2.8x speed up, which should put the "no cheating" version on the same standing as the Java implementation.
Cheers, Brad --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
