On Tuesday, 23 August 2016 at 12:12:30 UTC, Seb wrote:
I fixed that and also added how many samples were generated per run (10M), thanks!

Btw I quickly added the run-time for C++ (for G++ and clang++ with -O3) and it doesn't look that bad:



Note that for comparison between languages the speed of the random engine plays a major role and that superior performance was never a top priority for this generic method (statistical quality is far more important). However I will work more on being faster than <random> for common distributions over the next weeks ;-)

Reply via email to