Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> If I add up a few thousand 32-bit signed integers, it takes 20 seconds.
> > 
> >   What are you using? A 8086? In fact, I think even a 8086 could sum
> > a lot more than a few thousands of integers in 20 seconds.

> You understand that when I said "a few thousand", I just meant "a lot", 
> right? I wasn't being rigorous about the number.

> Actually the number I'm using is 10^8, which is... er, let me see... 100 
> million?

  20 seconds to add up 100 million integers is still quite a lot.

  I find it ironic that you constantly comment on the "unfounded" prejudices
relating to the speed of Haskell in the other group, yet time after time you
demonstrate in practice how Haskell is orders of magnitude slower than a
simple C++ program. This isn't the first time that I remember.

> >   Out of curiosity, I tried a small test program in my computer which
> > creates an array of integers, then goes through it and calculates the
> > sum of all the integers. I had to use an array of 100 million integers
> > before I got even some measurable delay, and that was 0.7 seconds.
> > 
> >   I bet most of the time was caused by cache misses because of the
> > humongous array (taking 400 megabytes of memory) rather than the summing
> > process.

> Uhuh. And are you by any chance running this on an AMD Mobile AlthonXP 
> 1400+?

  I have hard time believing my computer is 30 times faster than that.
Twice or three times as fast I could still maybe swallow, but not 30 times.
(Athlons are rather notorious for being much faster than the Pentium4 line
with the same clockrates.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message