Re: About alternatives to Matlab


Jon Harrop wrote:

Yes. The time taken is dominated by memory accesses. The amount of
arithmetic is almost irrelevant.

That is extremely interesting. It would explain why I see almost the
same performance in NumPy and Fortran 95 on this kind of task, using
array slicing in both languages.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A question on Newtons Method
    ... > Jon Harrop wrote: ... >> archaic theoretical foundation, other languages aren't. ... >> forced to use old code, I see no reason to use Fortran. ... > repository there's every reason to join Fortran literacy club. ...
    (sci.math.num-analysis)
  • Re: Simple question, err... I think
    ... On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Jon Harrop wrote: ... (A lacks a huge number of features of B) ... (Fortran 2003 is a subset of B). ... Fortran 2003 might be one of the few languages falling outside ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Very poor Lisp performance
    ... > Jon Harrop wrote: ... Lisp to me for these kinds of tasks, ... There you probably want Fortran or C (and ... > writes an app in several languages... ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: About alternatives to Matlab
    ... same performance in NumPy and Fortran 95 on this kind of task, ... Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: Java or C++?
    ... > | Jon Harrop: ... > |>> by physicists to physicists because they don't know any better. ... > |> Is there something about Fortran that sucks? ... The fundamental problem is propagated by the myth that scientific computing ...
    (comp.programming)