Hi Jürgen, The box is a Dell Dimension 2400, with a 2.4 ghz P4, running Win 7 Pro. GNU APL is under 32 bit Cygwin, and APL2 is also installed.
Since D is '0123456789' and Z←10|Z, the only possible source of an index error there is if you didn't set ⎕IO←0. Regards, Mike On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Juergen Sauermann < juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de> wrote: > Hi Mike, > > the only thing I am getting is: > > *INDEX ERROR+* > *TIMES[7] Z←((¯1+⍴Z)⌊+/∧\'0'=Z)↓Z←D[⌽Z]* > ^^ > > Another question: are you running GNU APL on the same machine as IBM APL2 > or under a GNU/Linux emulator like *cygwin*? > > /// Jürgen > > > On 08/22/2015 06:24 AM, Mike Duvos wrote: > > One more little benchmark, this time doing a variety of primitives. > > ⎕IO←0 > > ∇ > [0] TIME X;TS > [1] TS←⎕TS > [2] ⍎X > [3] (⍕(24 60 60 1000⊥¯4↑⎕TS-TS)÷1000),' Seconds.' > ∇ > > ∇ > [0] Z←SHOW X;I > [1] Z←(I,50)⍴(50×I←⌈(⍴X)÷50)↑X←,X > ∇ > > ∇ > [0] Z←X TIMES Y;D;I;C > [1] Z←+⌿(-⍳⍴X)⌽Z←((⍴X),(⍴X)+⍴Y)↑Z←(D⍳X←⌽,X)∘.×(D←'0123456789')⍳Y←⌽,Y > [2] I←¯1◊C←0 > [3] L1:→((I←I+1)⍴Z)/L2 > [4] C←⌊(÷10)×Z[I]←Z[I]+C > [5] Z[I]←10|Z[I] > [6] →L1 > [7] L2:Z←((¯1+⍴Z)⌊+/∧\'0'=Z)↓Z←D[⌽Z] > ∇ > > ∇ > [0] Z←FACTORIAL N;I > [1] Z←,'1'◊I←1 > [2] L1:→((I←I+1)>N)/0 > [3] Z←Z TIMES⍕I > [4] →L1 > ∇ > > [IBM APL2] > > TIME 'SHOW FACTORIAL 300' > 30605751221644063603537046129726862938858880417357 > 69994167767412594765331767168674655152914224775733 > 49939147888701726368864263907759003154226842927906 > 97455984122547693027195460400801221577625217685425 > 59653569035067887252643218962642993652045764488303 > 88909753943489625436053225980776521270822437639449 > 12012867867536830571229368194364995646049816645022 > 77165001851765464693401122260347297240663332585835 > 06870150169794168850353752137554910289126407157154 > 83028228493795263658014523523315693648223343679925 > 45940952768206080622328123873838808170496000000000 > 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 > 000000000000000 > 2.078 Seconds. > > [GNU APL] > > TIME 'SHOW FACTORIAL 300' > 30605751221644063603537046129726862938858880417357 > 69994167767412594765331767168674655152914224775733 > 49939147888701726368864263907759003154226842927906 > 97455984122547693027195460400801221577625217685425 > 59653569035067887252643218962642993652045764488303 > 88909753943489625436053225980776521270822437639449 > 12012867867536830571229368194364995646049816645022 > 77165001851765464693401122260347297240663332585835 > 06870150169794168850353752137554910289126407157154 > 83028228493795263658014523523315693648223343679925 > 45940952768206080622328123873838808170496000000000 > 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 > 000000000000000 > 52.547 Seconds. > > I see these numbers, ~2 seconds and ~52 seconds a lot, so I will conclude > object-oriented APL is about 25 times as slow as fine-tuned machine > language APL. Not too bad a penalty for portability across a wide spectrum > of CPU architectures and Operating Systems. > > With modern commodity processors doing billion of instructions per second, > most people probably won't even notice. > > > >
