Hi Frank, could you please post the matlab source code ? So it will be possible to compare analytically the oct C++ version with the matlab code?
Thanks Riccardo
frank wang <address@hidden> ha scritto:
My problem with the speed is that I tried to convert my current project into octave a few month ago and it works. The only problem is it becomes very slow, so I could not convince a bunch of matlab co-worker to use octave. I tried this example just to see whether there any improvement during the time.
For your information, I have tried the similar cone in Python and Python is about 4 time slower than matlab.
>From my opinion, octave lacking an usefull debugger and the speed issue really prevent companies to use this nice software for any
big project.
Thanks
Frank
On 9/7/07, John W. Eaton wrote: > On 7-Sep-2007, Don Roberts wrote: > > | I also ran into an order of magnitude speed difference between > | Matlab and Octave on a section of >vectorized< (Matlab-style rather > | than for-loop style code), but don't think it speaks badly of > | Octave. The issue does appear to be Matlab's just-in-time > | >compiler<. It's been several months and I don't have the exact > | code handy, but it was an element-wise comparison of two vectors > | followed by a reduction. Unfortunately, it's not an > | apples-to-apples comparison. Matlab (7.04) was running under XP on > | a 2.x GHz Pentium and Octave (2.1.73) under Linux under a 2.4 GHz > | PowerPC. Re-writing the function as linked-in C gave negligible > | speed-up for Matlab, but the expected 10X speed-up for
Octave. > > If you were able to do this, then how about contributing the code so > everyone can benefit from the improvement? > > jwe > _______________________________________________ Help-octave mailing list address@hidden https://www.cae.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/help-octave
L'email della prossima generazione? Puoi averla con la Nuova Yahoo! Mail