On Tuesday 30 October 2007 17:31, Inga Petuhhov wrote:
A copy-paste from Python Shell:
a = 1
a
1
a = a + 0.4
a
1.3999
a = a - 0.4
a
0.99989
a == 1
False
Or a bit more simple (and for some maybe even more surprising):
1.0 == 0.4 - 0.4 + 1.0
True
Or even better, give a clear problem description.
TASKS:
First, is to count number of words inside the document.
Second, is to count number of unique words inside the document.
INPUT:
Document format is using HTML-like format for storing articles. Here's
the format:
DOC (contains an
Bee schreef:
TStrings is meant for GUI purposes. It's design and implementation are
not optimized.
Then its our task to optimize it more (and more) so it could as fast as
Perl. What I meant here is using standard or default FPC's
classes/units. ;) I don't count any third parties
TStrings is meant for GUI purposes. It's design and implementation are
not optimized.
Then its our task to optimize it more (and more) so it could as fast as
Perl. What I meant here is using standard or default FPC's
classes/units. ;) I don't count any third parties class/units/library or
I had never used Perl before. Until someone showed me Perl is very fast
for text processing (using its powerful regex), despite it's an
interpreted language. It even beat Delphi and FPC though both are
compiled language. A few lines Perl program almost two times faster than
a few pages
TStrings is meant for GUI purposes. It's design and implementation are
not optimized.
Then its our task to optimize it more (and more) so it could as fast as
Perl. What I meant here is using standard or default FPC's
classes/units. ;) I don't count any third parties class/units/library
Hello,
I'm seeking for advice about which is the best way to hold an array of
class instances
I need to access the elements using its position (like a regular
array) , and also i'd like
the structure to grow when I add more elements.
Fpc has 'dynamic arrays' , and also there several classes
On 31 Oct 2007, at 00:47, L wrote:
And I'm sure you know you can always use GOTO statements when you
really need
speed out of loops
Actually, in current FPC versions that will more often than not cause
slowdowns, because the compiler cannot optimize as well when goto's
are used.
The discussion about PI reminds me another funny quote:
The primary purpose of the DATA statement is to give names to
constants; instead of referring to pi as 3.141592653589793 at every
appearance, the variable PI can be given that value with a DATA
statement and used instead of the longer form
Bee schreef:
If you just want to show off, the easiest is simply making a FPC
header to
pcre, it might be useful even.
Making a header on top of other libraries written by other languages is
showing that FPC is lack of powerful units/libraries. For some
particular cases maybe it's alright.
On 31 Oct 2007, at 10:40, Bee wrote:
If you just want to show off, the easiest is simply making a FPC
header to
pcre, it might be useful even.
Making a header on top of other libraries written by other
languages is showing that FPC is lack of powerful units/libraries.
It merely means
If you just want to show off, the easiest is simply making a FPC header to
pcre, it might be useful even.
Making a header on top of other libraries written by other languages is
showing that FPC is lack of powerful units/libraries. For some
particular cases maybe it's alright. For example
Adrian Maier wrote:
Hello,
I'm seeking for advice about which is the best way to hold an array of
class instances
I need to access the elements using its position (like a regular
array) , and also i'd like
the structure to grow when I add more elements
TObjectList
If you want specific non
To give you a head start, check out:
http://svn.freepascal.org/svn/fpc/trunk/packages/base/regexpr/
You read my mind! I've just been thinking about to use fpc's regex unit. :D
It needs testing and fixing.
How is it compare with regex that comes from FPC 2.0.4? I still can't
upgrade to fpc
I hear the Intel C compilers and Fortran compilers and Ada compilers are better
optimized for certain things since FPC/delphi are generally desinged for GUI
programming. ;-)
C/Fortran yes, Ada no; there exists no Intel Ada compiler.
False. There's no speed penalty for writing in Ada vs C. They
On 31 Oct 2007, at 11:00, Bee wrote:
It merely means you don't want to waste time on rewriting a
perfectly good library simply because of abstract language
purity reasons. It is completely irrelevant in what language a
library is written if it works well with your program and does
what
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 07:36:39PM +0200, Musan Antal wrote:
The discussion about PI reminds me another funny quote:
The primary purpose of the DATA statement is to give names to
constants; instead of referring to pi as 3.141592653589793 at every
appearance, the variable PI can be given that
It merely means you don't want to waste time on rewriting a perfectly
good library simply because of abstract language purity reasons. It is
completely irrelevant in what language a library is written if it works
well with your program and does what you want.
Yes. If C is very good, I won't
Heck, I'm not even a programmer, and this kludge is
about 25% faster than your perl script on my machine
program koleski;
{$MODE OBJFPC} {$H+}
uses classes, strings;
var
f: text;
s:ansistring;
wc:longint=0;
wl, ul:TStringList;
i,n:LongInt;
begin
assign(f, 'Koleksi.dat');
Heck, I'm not even a programmer, and this kludge is
about 25% faster than your perl script on my machine
Nope. It's still more or less twice slower. :-D
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ time perl koleksi.perl
Word count: 126944
Unique word count: 11793
real0m0.208s
user0m0.204s
sys
On 10/31/07, Matt Emson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adrian Maier wrote:
Hello,
I'm seeking for advice about which is the best way to hold an array of
class instances
I need to access the elements using its position (like a regular
array) , and also i'd like
the structure to grow when I
this kludge is about 25% faster than your perl script
on my machine
Nope. It's still more or less twice slower. :-D
I guess it depends on the hardware:
% time koleksi.pl # perl
Word count: 126944
Unique word count: 11793
real0m1.019s
user0m0.992s
sys 0m0.028s
% time
Jeff Pohlmeyer schreef:
this kludge is about 25% faster than your perl script
on my machine
Nope. It's still more or less twice slower. :-D
I guess it depends on the hardware:
% time koleksi.pl # perl
Word count: 126944
Unique word count: 11793
real0m1.019s
user0m0.992s
sys
AMD-K6-700 / SuSE-10.3 / Linux-2.6.22 / perl-5.8.8 / fpc-2.2.0
Probably because the different fpc version, no? I'm using fpc 2.0.4.
However, this is a good news. :)
-Bee-
has Bee.ography at:
http://beeography.wordpress.com
___
fpc-pascal
If you just want to show off, the easiest is simply making a FPC header to
pcre, it might be useful even.
Someone had worked on it using Delphi7 and PCRE. A little optimization
is done on the TStringList, it uses CompareText instead of CompareStr
for text comparison. It does faster than
the easiest is simply making a FPC header to
pcre, it might be useful even.
I did that, once upon a time...
http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/526004_qpvr0/pcre-fpc.tar.gz
-Jeff
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
I made it three times as fast on my computer (windows 2000, fpc 2.3.1,
P4 1.5 Ghz) using a hashlist for the unique word count. Using a larger
textbuf gave an additional 10% speed up:
Arrrggg, I hate myself for not able to upgrade to fpc v.2.2.0! I
can't find TFPStringHashTable on fpc
Adrian Maier wrote:
On 10/31/07, Matt Emson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adrian Maier wrote:
Hello,
I'm seeking for advice about which is the best way to hold an array of
class instances
I need to access the elements using its position (like a regular
array) , and also i'd like
the structure to
Adrian Maier wrote:
VArray: array of TSomeClass;
begin
SetLength(VArray, 10);
// now you have VArray[0] .. VArray[9];
SetLength(VArray, 20);
// now you have [0] .. [19];
// Length(VArray) = 20
// for I := 0 to Pred(Length(VArray)) is a valid statement
They are
On 10/31/07, Joao Morais [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adrian Maier wrote:
On 10/31/07, Matt Emson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adrian Maier wrote:
Hello,
I'm seeking for advice about which is the best way to hold an array of
class instances
I need to access the elements using its position
Marco van de Voort wrote:
Adrian Maier wrote:
VArray: array of TSomeClass;
begin
SetLength(VArray, 10);
// now you have VArray[0] .. VArray[9];
SetLength(VArray, 20);
// now you have [0] .. [19];
// Length(VArray) = 20
// for I := 0 to Pred(Length(VArray)) is a valid
Marco van de Voort wrote:
Adrian Maier wrote:
VArray: array of TSomeClass;
begin
SetLength(VArray, 10);
// now you have VArray[0] .. VArray[9];
SetLength(VArray, 20);
// now you have [0] .. [19];
// Length(VArray) = 20
// for I := 0 to Pred(Length(VArray)) is a valid
Dear Joao,
I do beleive that the SetLength only resize the array, ie: The
Vetor has 3 elements like:
Vetor[0]:= 1
Vetor[1]:= 2
Vetor[2]:= 3
And then eu want the same variable but with only 2 element, then
SetLength(Vetor, 2)
Vetor[0]:= 1
Vetor[1]:= 2
As you can see
Lourival Mendes wrote:
SetLength(Vetor, 2)
Vetor[0]:= 1
Vetor[1]:= 2
As you can see you don't lose the first 2, After that you want 4
elements on the same variable:
SetLength(Vetor, 4)
If you print the variable, before associate any value to it you will get:
Vetor[0]:= 1
On 31/10/2007, Bee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vincent said it was 3 times faster. I expected the result would be about
0.10s. Or am I wrong?
Maybe that's machine dependent I'll try the one without the hash
table to see the difference. Otherwise, lets just compare the sys
time and say it's
Bee schreef:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:word_parser$ time ./project1
Word count:126944
Unique word count:11793
real0m0.185s
user0m0.140s
sys 0m0.000s
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:word_parser$ time perl project1.perl
Word count: 126944
Unique word count: 11793
real0m0.281s
user0m0.244s
sys
Bee schreef:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:word_parser$ time ./project1
Word count:126944
Unique word count:11793
real0m0.185s
user0m0.140s
sys 0m0.000s
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:word_parser$ time perl project1.perl
Word count: 126944
Unique word count: 11793
real0m0.281s
user0m0.244s
sys
On 31/10/2007, Vincent Snijders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe I have a relatively slow computer, so I get more speedup. Keep in mind,
that
disk time is constant.
I'm also not sure if FPC compiler parameters where used. I did.
I compiled as:fpc project1.pas
Anyway, here is the Hash
Adrian Maier wrote:
On 10/31/07, Joao Morais [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adrian Maier wrote:
On 10/31/07, Matt Emson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adrian Maier wrote:
Hello,
I'm seeking for advice about which is the best way to hold an array of
class instances
I need to access the elements using
Well done Vincent!! :-) I can confirm your results...
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:word_parser$ time ./project1
Word count:126944
Unique word count:11793
real0m0.185s
user0m0.140s
sys 0m0.000s
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:word_parser$ time perl project1.perl
Word count: 126944
Unique word count: 11793
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:word_parser$ time ./project1
Word count:126944
Unique word count:11793
real0m0.185s
user0m0.140s
sys 0m0.000s
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:word_parser$ time perl project1.perl
Word count: 126944
Unique word count: 11793
real0m0.281s
user0m0.244s
sys 0m0.016s
On 31/10/2007, Vincent Snijders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe I have a relatively slow computer, so I get more speedup. Keep in
mind, that
disk time is constant.
I'm also not sure if FPC compiler parameters where used. I did.
I compiled as:fpc project1.pas
It could be wise to
On 10/31/07, Joao Morais [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They are reference counted, just like ansi strings, ie don't worry about
memory leakages.
The detail that is not crystal clear to me is : after the first SetLength
and i set the first 3 elements , is it *guaranteed* that the
second
I had never used Perl before. Until someone showed me Perl is very fast
for text processing (using its powerful regex), despite it's an
interpreted language. It even beat Delphi and FPC though both are
compiled language. A few lines Perl program almost two times faster than
a few pages pascal
El mar, 30-10-2007 a las 19:36 +0200, Musan Antal escribió:
Oh, my GOD!
I hope, in the current eternity, no change in the value of pi might
occur!
I bet the circles will never will be the same if that happens.:P
___
fpc-pascal maillist -
On Wednesday 31 October 2007 12:35, Daniël Mantione wrote:
Further, it is unknown how well the GCC backend optimizes Ada
language constructs as it is primarily designed for the C language.
Well enough. In other words, optimization is about the same - given
fairly equivalent code.
The main
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
I had never used Perl before. Until someone showed me Perl is very fast
for text processing (using its powerful regex), despite it's an
interpreted language. It even beat Delphi and FPC though both are
compiled language. A few lines Perl
On 31/10/2007, Marco van de Voort [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It could be wise to add -O3 for anything considered a benchmark :-)
It squeezed another 0.015s out of the time making it even faster. :-)
Regards,
- Graeme -
___
fpGUI - a
On 10/31/07, Marco van de Voort [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/31/07, Joao Morais [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They are reference counted, just like ansi strings, ie don't worry about
memory leakages.
The detail that is not crystal clear to me is : after the first SetLength
and i set
On 31/10/2007, Bee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alright everyone. The answers are enough. Now I can say confidently that
pascal (fpc v.2.2) is FASTER than Perl, including in text processing. ;)
Thank you very much to everyone who involves in this thread. :)
That was fun!!! :-0 So what's the
Marco van de Voort schreef:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
I had never used Perl before. Until someone showed me Perl is very fast
for text processing (using its powerful regex), despite it's an
interpreted language. It even beat Delphi and FPC though both are
compiled
Bee schreef:
But people who have seen
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=regexdnalang=all
may have doubted that.
Vincent, are we connected or what?! I was about to post the very exact
URL! :-D
I wonder where fpc would end up in that list,
A: if it uses its own
On 31/10/2007, Graeme Geldenhuys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That was fun!!! :-0 So what's the task for tomorrow? ;-)
for tomorrow the homework is: improve fpc regexp capability and get
fpc in the top 5 on the regex-dna shootout ratings ;)
Regards,
- Graeme -
henry
Sure, but as Jonas pointed out it is better to use a good library than
the write a bad library yourself.
And someone would claim that the speed comes from the library (c?), not
from pascal. :P It's a LANGUAGE shootout btw, not LIBRARY shootout.
Maybe you had forgotten that. ;)
-Bee-
has
Bee schreef:
Sure, but as Jonas pointed out it is better to use a good library than
the write a bad library yourself.
And someone would claim that the speed comes from the library (c?), not
from pascal. :P It's a LANGUAGE shootout btw, not LIBRARY shootout.
Maybe you had forgotten that. ;)
On Wednesday 31 October 2007 14:19, Bee wrote:
Sure, but as Jonas pointed out it is better to use a good library
than the write a bad library yourself.
And someone would claim that the speed comes from the library (c?),
not
from pascal. :P It's a LANGUAGE shootout btw, not LIBRARY
A. That is not a problem. A couple of other, non-c participants use pcre.
I myself would consider them lacks of the language advantage on their own.
B. The same is done with pidigits.
C. It shows that fpc has good interoperability.
We could submit more than one programs, one using fpc own
Well, considering that perl's or Python's speed greatly rely on the
underlying C-implementation of (at least) particular functionality, all
those comparisons basically boil down to C vs. C, anyway. Or don't
they?
Exactly! That's why I prefer to use fpc own regexpr unit. :)
-Bee-
has
Vincent Snijders schrieb:
Jeff Pohlmeyer schreef:
this kludge is about 25% faster than your perl script
on my machine
Nope. It's still more or less twice slower. :-D
I guess it depends on the hardware:
% time koleksi.pl # perl
Word count: 126944
Unique word count: 11793
real
Florian Klaempfl schreef:
Vincent Snijders schrieb:
Jeff Pohlmeyer schreef:
s[i]:=#0;
SetLength(s,StrLen(@s[1]));
Why not SetLength(s,i)? StrLen is _very_ expensive. I don't see a way
how another #0 can be before.
That is right, I am working on a version which does not
On 31 Oct 2007, at 19:11, L wrote:
Further, it is unknown how well the GCC backend optimizes Ada
language constructs as it is primarily designed for the C language.
I assumed that people used not just GNU Ada compilers.. for serious
work.
But I'm not sure.
For example, what do Airplanes
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:56:04 +0100 (CET)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco van de Voort) wrote:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
I had never used Perl before. Until someone showed me Perl is
very fast for text processing (using its powerful regex), despite
it's an interpreted
For example, what do Airplanes use? GNU?
Ada compilers must be certified, so if you are developing software for
avionics *you have* to write your software with a compiler certified for
avionics development.
JK
___
fpc-pascal maillist -
Well, considering that perl's or Python's speed greatly rely on the
underlying C-implementation of (at least) particular functionality, all
those comparisons basically boil down to C vs. C, anyway. Or don't
they?
Exactly! That's why I prefer to use fpc own regexpr unit. :)
-Bee-
Word count: 126944
Unique word count: 11793
real0m0.281s
user0m0.244s
sys 0m0.016s
Can someone do a test for 5 minutes of parsing and see if things slow down or
speed up for one of the programs?
That takes away process load time too..
example: the time it takes to fork
Word count: 126944
Unique word count: 11793
real0m0.281s
user0m0.244s
sys 0m0.016s
Can someone do a test for 5 minutes of parsing
Rather I mean can someone do a more realistic test such as parsing 1500 files
instead of one single file. At least in my line of
Op Wed, 31 Oct 2007, schreef Vincent Snijders:
Florian Klaempfl schreef:
Vincent Snijders schrieb:
Why not SetLength(s,i)? StrLen is _very_ expensive. I don't see a way
how another #0 can be before.
No more strlen:
http://www.hu.freepascal.org/fpcircbot/cgipastebin?msgid=1432
One
Florian Klaempfl schreef:
Vincent Snijders schrieb:
Why not SetLength(s,i)? StrLen is _very_ expensive. I don't see a way
how another #0 can be before.
No more strlen:
http://www.hu.freepascal.org/fpcircbot/cgipastebin?msgid=1432
Vincent
___
Am Donnerstag, den 01.11.2007, 00:45 +0200 schrieb ik:
Hi List,
I have a weird problem. the fpWrite is too slow for FPC code. When
I have the same exact code in C that writes a big amount of buffers of
the same size with the same content. It seems that the fpWrite is way
too fast, and the
On 01/11/2007, Vincent Snijders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No more strlen:
http://www.hu.freepascal.org/fpcircbot/cgipastebin?msgid=1432
Wow, that version improved quite a bit from the previous one!!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:word_parser$ time ./project1_fast
Word count:126944
Unique word count:11793
70 matches
Mail list logo
