> Oleg, I haven't been watching the Forums closely lately; would you point me > to the messages that > highlighted this behavior (i.e. shift+operate is faster than infix)?
Follow thread: http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2008-March/009925.html --- Dan Bron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Arie: > > I do not get your result? > > Put this down to "the vaguaries of benchmarking". The difference is not > significant in either > case. > > OTOH, I just did different test: > > ts =: 6!:2 , 7!:2@:] > Y =: ?.@:$&2]1e7 > > ts&>'(}. +. }:) Y';'2 +./\ Y' > 0.0517359 5.03327e7 > 0.227543 3.35559e7 > > 0.01 round (%"1<./) ts&>'(}. +. }:) Y';'2 +./\ Y' [ load'misc' > 1 1.5 > 4.69 1 > > This difference *is* significant, and it corroborates Oleg's assertion: > > > I thought it was shown that old style shift > > is more efficient than infix. > > which surprises me, given the links I cited before. Roger, can you clarify > or elaborate? > > Oleg, I haven't been watching the Forums closely lately; would you point me > to the messages that > highlighted this behavior (i.e. shift+operate is faster than infix)? > > -Dan > > PS: This latter benchmark is not relevant to the problem at hand, because of > the requirement > for catentation I indicated earlier. Neither method is a clear winner in > that case (i.e. their > performance is comparable). > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
