Re: forall and do loop
- From: Richard Edgar <rge21@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 09:50:42 -0400
highegg wrote:
On one project (propeller aerodynamics), I have also wasted my time
for an experiment - I developed two versions of the code, one using
assumed shape arrays and array results and expressions and all that
performance-dangerous stuff, other using assumed size arrays with
storage associations and explicit loops and such stuff. In the end,
the running times were differing by 1.5% at most, and the "optimized"
code looked fairly more clunky (particularly using assumed size +
storage association instead of assumed shape+sections) and took more
time. On the other optimizing the real bootleneck (a numerical
integral evaluation) reduced runtime by 50% afterwards.
After that, I was convinced of the "Knuth's law".
This reminds me of two other "programming laws" (although I can't put a
name to either right now)
a) Not only does 10% of the code do 90% of the work; you are unlikely to
guess which 10% correctly. That's what profilers are for
b) The slowest part of the programming framework is the programmer
themself. The coding style should be optimised primarily around this fact
Richard
.
- References:
- forall and do loop
- From: aeroguy
- Re: forall and do loop
- From: glen herrmannsfeldt
- Re: forall and do loop
- From: aeroguy
- Re: forall and do loop
- From: highegg
- Re: forall and do loop
- From: aeroguy
- Re: forall and do loop
- From: highegg
- forall and do loop
- Prev by Date: Re: forall and do loop
- Next by Date: Re: forall and do loop
- Previous by thread: Re: forall and do loop
- Next by thread: Re: forall and do loop
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
