Re: new DLL compile code inside script languages

This would be a minimum inline-C procedure in Perl. Very fast. Very short!

#!/usr/bin/perl

use Inline C;
print suma(100_000_000);

__END__
__C__

double suma(double n)
{
  double i, sum = 0;
  for (i=1; i<=n; i++) {
    sum += i;
  }
  return sum;
}
[download]

Comment on Re: new DLL compile code inside script languages Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: new DLL compile code inside script languages by roboticus (Chancellor) on Jul 05, 2009 at 17:39 UTC
Jorge de Burgos: It could be even faster and shorter... `sub suma { my $n = shift; return $n * ($n+1) / 2; }` [download] ...roboticus	[reply] [d/l]
Re^3: new DLL compile code inside script languages by Jorge_de_Burgos (Beadle) on Jul 05, 2009 at 17:45 UTC
Listen roboticus, we are comparing brute-force approaches here...	[reply]
Re^4: new DLL compile code inside script languages by roboticus (Chancellor) on Jul 05, 2009 at 18:49 UTC
Jorge de Burgos: True ... but I was just trying to illustrate that it's often the case that looking for a better algorithm is more productive than optimizing the current code. ...roboticus	[reply]
Re^4: new DLL compile code inside script languages by Porculus (Hermit) on Jul 06, 2009 at 19:51 UTC
But that's not a very good thing to compare. What does it tell you? That C is faster than Perl for a very specific case of tight loops and integer arithmetic that is rendered totally moot by the existence of a trivial O(1) algorithm. What it doesn't tell you is whether Perl, Inline::C, PDL, or this VB-inspired DLL is a good choice for any real-world problem. It does not implement an interesting algorithm, so you can't compare which provides the most readable implementation; and it does not benchmark an interesting calculation, so you can't really compare performance either.	[reply]


XP is just a number
	PerlMonks