Hello. I tried to wake up my laptop from sleep just now, as usual - ie
I leave it in sleep mode while I'm asleep...
But, as occasionally happens, it must have restarted, and nothing was
open.
(I wanted to explore the Babylon Spiral topic, which I've just woken up
to see!)
I now find tha
1. There is wip wasm simd; I think firefox/chrome support it; if used, it
would probably make everything faster.
2. The goal of wasm is to make for faster tight loops than js. It is slower
at dynamic dispatch and pointer chasing than js, and slower than native c in
all three respects. But du
(Mind you... at least some aspects of the underlying Phix support that
I am comparing with here presumably took years to implement...)
--
Raul
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 10:28 PM Raul Miller wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 10:05 PM Joe Bogner wrote:
> > My guess is that any speedup will come f
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 10:05 PM Joe Bogner wrote:
> My guess is that any speedup will come from J code
> and not tweaks to the C->JS compilation (emscripten) since it seems to be
> in line with general emscripten expectations.
I agree.
> Are you seeing drastically different times on your machin
I am amazed that the J Playground works at all. If it's only 2x slower
than native, that's fantastic work by all.
I am a microcoder by upbringing, and I have not dismissed any
opportunity to save cycles in JE. For example, in the last parser
rewrite I use the 5 low-order bits of each block a
Neat example and nice demo of the playground (prototype version).
I haven't done much performance testing on the playground. I was expecting
the playground to be a large order of magnitude slower than J904. I was
pleasantly surprised to this example is 2x slower on the playground, which
is in line
https://rosettacode.org/wiki/Babylonian_spiral
The online J version is significantly slower than the online phix version.
Does anyone feel like working on this?
Thanks,
--
Raul
--
For information about J forums see http://www.
First off, this is a good question.
That said, it's matrix divide because we are "dividing by" a matrix.
But maybe it's easier to illustrate this than explain it:
'A B C'=:ABC=: p:i.3 3 3
ABC%.A
3.92308 4 2.25641
2 1.84615 1.58974
0.923077 _0.410256 _0.974359
5.230
Hello,
I was wondering why the matrix divide (dyadic %.) had rank _ 2. It would
seem logical to me that it should be 2 2, since it's *matrix* division
(and, indeed, the right rank is 2), and I find it hard to picture what a
3-dimentional array divided by a 2-dimentional array would be. Is it a
