I wrote "(...) non memoized recurrent solutions." Your solution is not recurrent.
There are much faster solutions in the Essay. R.E. Boss > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Namens Viktor Cerovski > Verzonden: donderdag 3 januari 2008 16:41 > Aan: [email protected] > Onderwerp: RE: [Jgeneral] Performance comparison > > > > You are right and if you want fast fib's, look at > http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Essays/Fibonacci_Sequence > > Thanks for the link. I've checked out the code there, lots of > very interesting solutions, but haven't found any one > similar to '(,[EMAIL PROTECTED])^:34(1 0)' > > > > But I wanted a solution as close as possible to those used in the other > > languages. > > > Fair enough. We had a long thread about benchmarking recently with > many insightful remarks. As Raul Miller mentioned, with which I agree, > if we want a code implementing a given solution that is similar across > several different languages, that implies existence of a certain > underlying > code that is independent of actual programming languages used. > > > > > Perhaps the conclusion should be: don't use J (as your first choice) for > > non > > memoized recurrent solutions. > > > > Still, we can consider a non-memoized solution that is short and fast: > > 10000 (6!:2) '(,[EMAIL PROTECTED])^:34(1 0)' > 0.0001093761917 > > -- > View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Performance- > comparison-tp14595315s24193p14599120.html > Sent from the J General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
