OpenEuphoria

2. Re: Can OpenEuphoria Help Solve This?

• Posted by ghaberek (admin) Aug 19, 2018
• 2269 views

I'm a big fan of Brady Haran, especially Numberphile and Objectivity. I recommend his podcasts as well, if that's your thing: Hello Internet and The Unmade Podcast.

But I would say that, no, Euphoria is probably not well suited for this, at least in its current state.

These types of brute-force problems require massively parallel systems that can crunch numbers at an astronomical rate.

I supposed you could probably get something going using a message queuing system of some sort, and then scale it out to however many nodes you want working on the problem.

But at that rate, if you want the fastest possible speed, you'd probably use C or Assembly directly on a big CPU, like a Ryzen or Core i9.

There are a couple big number libraries in the archive. I also have a wrapper for tiny-bignum-c if anyone is interested.

-Greg

4. Re: Can OpenEuphoria Help Solve This?

• Posted by irv Aug 20, 2018
• 2134 views

That's a good question. If we compile a small C program, say, "hello world", we get a very small executable, less than 9,000 bytes.

The same thing in compiled Eu is over 200,000 bytes. Seems unlikely that it would run as fast, and certainly would take longer to load (but not enough to notice).

So, yeah, it's 'C', but not necessarily the most efficient C, I'd guess.

6. Re: Can OpenEuphoria Help Solve This?

• Posted by irv Aug 20, 2018
• 2103 views

I've tried a few simple tests, and Euphoria (compiled) runs anywhere from 70 percent of the speed of the equivalent C code, up to 110 percent (iow - faster than C!)

It all depends upon what the test does. In real life, there would be a mix of the slower operations with the faster, so I wouldn't expect better than 70 percent or so.

Interestingly enough, in some selected instances, the interpreted Eu code runs nearly as fast as compiled C, also, but 25 percent is more realistic.

8. Re: Can OpenEuphoria Help Solve This?

• Posted by Pirx Aug 20, 2018
• 2114 views

Is it possible? If Euphoria translates to C then it means that C is faster than... C. The translation process can make the result slower, but can't make it faster than similar program written directly in a language the code is translated to. I'm still new to Euphoria (I may be doing things the wrong way), but all I got after compilation are programs that run max. 2 times faster than Eui and are significantly slower than code translated by Nim or run by Lujit. On 32-bit machine, sometimes they were even slower! Maybe we should start a new topic about it, but I would like to see examples of code that runs significantly faster after compilation and is as fast as C or Luajit.

10. Re: Can OpenEuphoria Help Solve This?

• Posted by Pirx Aug 21, 2018
• 2071 views

Lua is an embedded language, so is much simpler than Eeuphoria. The language itself is tiny and it comes with minimal standard library. There are several Lua distributions (Ulua, LuaPower, LuaDist, LuaForWindows) that come with batteries included, but some of the libraries are limited and/or not in development any more. You can use Lua to create Android apps. There is an Android version of LOVE, extremely easy to use 2D game engine. You can also use something like Corona to write different types of mobile apps. Lua is fast and the jit implementation is extremely fast. I would say that Euphoria is something between Lua and Python or Ruby.

12. Re: Can OpenEuphoria Help Solve This?

• Posted by _tom (admin) Aug 21, 2018
• 2021 views

I just ran "fannkuch" and "nbody" benchmarks on my netbook.

Phix compiled can be about the same speed as LuaJIT, while _OE compiled can be respectably close.

If you waste enough time with different arguments you can generate a variety of results.

The best criteria is that we create programs faster/easier using atom/sequence thinking.

_tom

14. Re: Can OpenEuphoria Help Solve This?

• Posted by _tom (admin) Aug 21, 2018
• 2021 views

Phix has a way of being faster than _OE.

The Phix algorithm from Rosetta Code:

integer a,b,c,d,e,g sequence f a=10000 f=repeat(floor(a/5) 
,8401) c=8400 e=0 while c>0 do g=2*c d=0 b=c while b>0 do  
d+=f[b]*a g-=1 f[b]=remainder(d, g) d=floor(d/g) g-=1 b-=1  
if b!=0 then d*=b end if end while printf(1,"%04d",e+floor 
(d/a)) c-=14 e = remainder(d,a) end while 

From Lua Rosetta Code:

a = {} 
n = 1000 
len = math.modf( 10 * n / 3 ) 
  
for j = 1, len do 
    a[j] = 2 
end 
nines = 0 
predigit = 0 
for j = 1, n do 
    q = 0 
    for i = len, 1, -1 do 
        x = 10 * a[i] + q * i 
        a[i] = math.fmod( x, 2 * i - 1 ) 
        q = math.modf( x / ( 2 * i - 1 ) ) 
    end 
    a[1] = math.fmod( q, 10 ) 
    q = math.modf( q / 10 ) 
    if q == 9 then 
        nines = nines + 1 
    else 
        if q == 10 then 
            io.write( predigit + 1 ) 
            for k = 1, nines do 
                io.write(0) 
            end 
            predigit = 0 
            nines = 0 
        else 
            io.write( predigit ) 
            predigit = q 
            if nines ~= 0 then 
                for k = 1, nines do 
                    io.write( 9 ) 
                end 
                nines = 0 
            end 
        end 
    end 
end 
print( predigit ) 

The test method:

atom t 
 
printf(1, "Phix\n" ) 
t = time() 
system( "p p_pi.ex" ) 
? time() - t 
 
printf(1, "\nPhix Compiled\n" ) 
-- you get a compiled program with: p -c p_pi.ex 
 
t = time() 
system( "./p_pi" ) 
? time() - t 
 
printf(1, "\nLuaJIT\n" ) 
t = time() 
system( "luajit pi.lua" ) 
? time() - t 

The test hardware:

• hp netbook (atom!)
• Bodhi Linux

The results

Phix is three time faster than LuaJIT.

Enough of a test, on my machine, to make Phix or _OE preferable to Lua. It is also true that many programmers would choose Lua if Euphoria was not available.

_tom

16. Re: Can OpenEuphoria Help Solve This?

• Posted by Pirx Aug 21, 2018
• 2006 views

_tom, you are comparing two different algorithms. I implemented the same algorithm in Lua and Euphoria (the code is, in most parts, identical). But that's not the point. I believe that compiled code runs much faster on other people's computers. I just don't know why it's so slow on my machine. It doesn't make sense. Compiled code is sometimes slower than the interpreter. The same happens on 32-bit SparkyLinux (based on Debian) and 64-bit Solus. Phix, on the other hand, doesn't work on them at all - segmentation fault is all I get. They are rolling release distros. I don't know on how old distro the Euphoria and Phix binaries I'm using have been compiled on and think that this may be the problem, but, of course, I may be wrong. And I wonder if somebody else has experienced anything like that.

18. Re: Can OpenEuphoria Help Solve This?

• Posted by petelomax Aug 21, 2018
• 2027 views

Can you install evans debugger and run edb --run ./p

I have 0.9.18 installed (right at the bottom of that page): I know I had problems compiling 0.9.20, and possibly 0.9.21, which may have been fixed with the .tgz file, but have only learnt of the existence of 1.0.0 some 30 seconds ago.

Pete

20. Re: Can OpenEuphoria Help Solve This?

• Posted by euphoric (admin) Aug 22, 2018
• 1960 views

Have you guys ever used Ada? I've just come across it recently, and it looks pretty good.

22. Re: Can OpenEuphoria Help Solve This?

• Posted by euphoric (admin) Aug 22, 2018
• 1954 views

It says Windows only. I'm not going to give any time to a language that is only for one platform.

But, in the interest of knowledge, what do you like about Modula-2?