On Feb 3, 11:40 pm, Alexandros Bantis <amban...@gmail.com> wrote: > yes, I believe I can just make a list of the greatest common factors and > then multiply them out to get the number rather than iterating through 2 > through n. Still, I'm curious about the performance difference, since > all three are running on the same JVM and ultimately are all compiled > down to java byte code, you would expect that a similar algorithm would > produce similar results across the three.
I ran both provided Java code and my Clojure code (defaulting to (int n) just like the Java version) with JVM `-server` option and. It made no difference to the Java version at 18s, but the Clojure version came down to 22s. This is probably because JIT inlining is more effective in the -server mode and Clojure's primitive support depends on inlining for performance: http://clojure.org/news Shantanu -- -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
