Re: speed of octave interpreter

[Robert A. Macy]

Don't know why yours is so slow
....using 2.1.50 on Win98 750MHz

testing nim_minimax...
>> tic;nim_minimax(15);toc
ans = 3.7310
>> 

Rewrite your code and get rid of every "for" loop.
They are *extremely* slow.

         - Robert -


On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 13:35:23 -0400
 Brian Blais <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I am running Octave (2.1.71) on Linux (SuSe 9.1), and
> have written a
> simple recursive minimax example for a class, and it
> seemed to run very
> slowly.   So, on a whim, I decided to test it in Scilab
> 3.0, Matlab 7.0
> and Octave.  In summary, the octave version is about 100x
> slower.  What
> I get is the following:
> 
> Scilab 3.0:
> 
> -->dt=getdate(); nim_minimax(15); etime(getdate(),dt)
>    ans  =
> 
>       0.648
> 
> 
> Matlab  7.0:
> 
>   >> tic; nim_minimax_matlab(15); toc
> Elapsed time is 0.821107 seconds.
> 
> 
> Octave 2.1.71
> 
>   >> tic; nim_minimax(15); toc
> ans = 64.208
> 
> 
> 
> I am attaching the code, in case anyone else wants to try
> it.  Is there
> a reason why the interpreter is more than 100x slower
> than the others?!
>    I knew of the problems in Windows, but this is not
> that problem.  Is
> there a way to address this, because in some cases it
> makes the
> difference between usable and not usable.
> 
> If anyone needs any other info about the system or octave
> version I am
> running, please just ask.
> 
>                       Brian Blais
> 
> -- 
> -----------------
> 
>               address@hidden
>               http://web.bryant.edu/~bblais
> 



-------------------------------------------------------------
Octave is freely available under the terms of the GNU GPL.

Octave's home on the web:  http://www.octave.org
How to fund new projects:  http://www.octave.org/funding.html
Subscription information:  http://www.octave.org/archive.html
-------------------------------------------------------------