Stephen Wille Padnos wrote:
>
> I was in the middle of writing a similar statement, with some general
> instructions on writing a test program, when I decided to just write the
> test program instead :) I found that the first version runs 1,000,000
> loops in about 0.5 seconds (on a 2.2 GHz Cor
Given today's PCs, for all but the most hard-core numbercrunching, you
are better off optimizing for readability. Don't do obviously bad
things like computing the same value three times, but in general, if you
are doing closed form math that doesn't involve loops or iteration, it
will be very fast
Stuart Stevenson wrote:
> Gentlemen,
>which style of computation would run faster in the kinematics file?
>
> this:
> va1=atan(askew1)
>
> va2=atan(-bskew1)
>
> or this:
> acomp=asin(sin(acmd))-(((cos(acmd))*(sin(-bcmd)))*$
>
> (tan((atan(-bskew1))*(cos((atan(-bskew1)/$
>
count
but I can make an analogy that works :).
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Greg
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Stuart Stevenson [mailto:stus...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 12:14 AM
> To: Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)
> Subject: Re: [Emc-users] equations
interest in mechanical
engineering but I can make an analogy that works :).
Thanks again.
Greg
-Original Message-
From: Stuart Stevenson [mailto:stus...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 12:14 AM
To: Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)
Subject: Re: [Emc-users] equations in kinema
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Stephen Wille Padnos
wrote:
> Chris Radek wrote:
>
>>On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 10:14:04PM -0600, Stuart Stevenson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Gentlemen,
>>> which style of computation would run faster in the kinematics file?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>If they are equivalent (and I sure as
For me the easiest is the first one but then I also need my graphics
to follow that. I had to use the graphics in NCL to understand what
and how to get through the computations. It is really pretty simple
when you finally understand it. It is tedious though.
in the second set:
I checked the shorte
Chris Radek wrote:
>On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 10:14:04PM -0600, Stuart Stevenson wrote:
>
>
>>Gentlemen,
>> which style of computation would run faster in the kinematics file?
>>
>>
>
>If they are equivalent (and I sure as heck didn't check that),
>
I didn't check for correctness either. I
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 10:14:04PM -0600, Stuart Stevenson wrote:
> Gentlemen,
>which style of computation would run faster in the kinematics file?
If they are equivalent (and I sure as heck didn't check that), it
will make little difference whether you split it up like #1 or have
huge stateme
