Re: Stupid Newbie-sounding question.
--0-400992202-1086181540=:84115
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
No, No! Please don't make Euphoria slower!
Slow BAD, fast GOOD !!
I am in total agreement with Matt Lewis ...
<soapbox>
One of the greatest advantages Euphoria has is its combination of
speed and flexibility. I am also very focused upon algorithms and have
recently switched to Euphoria because I can develop a lot of the
scientific code that was only previously possible using C, Fortran or
an analogous compiled-only language.Python is similarly flexible in
that you can develop and test code rapidly but compared to Euphoria,
it runs like molasses. Euphoria is a superb environment for developing
CPU-intensive code since even interpreted, it runs fast enough to
allow you to see what your code will do in a reasonable timeframe.
I am very interested in molecular simulation and recently started
working with a structure that was too large to work with using the
Python scripts I had developed to set up such simulations. Using
Euphoria I was able to rapidly rewrite (and greatly improve) these
scripts and I was thrilled at how rapidly and easily Euphoria allowed
me to do this, but most of all, I was "Euphoric" to see how fast the
new code ran, even before I had compiled it. In a few seconds,my new
Euphoria code can easily prepare an ensemble of half a million atoms
for a molecular dynamics simulation. I never found out how long this
same ensemble took with my old Python script since I never had the
patience to let it finish - but after 1 hour, I was still waiting!
However ... the speed expands the scope of what it's possible to do
and as Matt pointed out, it doesn't take long to push the envelope. I
am already starting to work with larger ensembles of atoms and the
wait time increases with the number of atoms.
Euphoria lets you do stuff you couldn't do otherwise and slowing it
down any would be the opposite direction to the good way forward.
Doing stuff fast is why we use computers in the first place!
</soapbox>
Best
Gordon
Matt Lewis <guest at RapidEuphoria.com> wrote:
Derek Parnell wrote:
irv mullins wrote:
>
> And even if speed was an overriding concern when Euphoria was
> designed, surely it isn't all that important anymore, when even
> the cheap WalMart price-busters run at 2.7 ghz.
Firstly, I agree with you totally. My opinion is that Euphoria is more
than fast enough for any of the application for which I would choose to
use it. Making it 50% slower would still leave it more than fast enough.
I agree that Euphoria is fast enough for *most* things that I like to
do with it, however, it wouldn't be if it slowed down (especially by
50%). I write a lot of custom optimization code in Euphoria, and it's
often right on the edge of being fast enough for some things. If it
slowed down, I'd have to stop using Euphoria for these tasks (yes,
even running on 3Ghz machines).
It's mainly the flexibility/speed combination that I like. I can
develop these things very quickly, and more of my time is focused on the
algorithms, rather than data structure or garbage collection, which
can be really important when you're looking at, say, hundreds of
thousands
or millions of possible solutions.
I'm sure I'm in the minority on this (although going by User
Contributions,
not totally alone), but thought I'd speak up for those of us for whom
speed still matters.
Matt Lewis
:::::::::: Gordon Webster ::::::::::
--0-400992202-1086181540=:84115
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV>
<DIV>No, No! Please don't make Euphoria slower!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Slow BAD, fast GOOD !!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I am in total agreement with Matt Lewis ...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><soapbox></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>One of the greatest advantages Euphoria has is its combination of
speed and flexibility. I am also very focused upon algorithms and have
recently switched to Euphoria because I can develop a lot of the
scientific code that was only previously possible using C, Fortran or
an analogous compiled-only language.Python is similarly flexible in
that you can develop and test code rapidly but compared to Euphoria,
it runs like molasses. Euphoria is a superb environment for developing
CPU-intensive code since even interpreted, it runs fast enough to
allow you to see what your code will do in a reasonable timeframe.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I am very interested in molecular simulation and recently started
working with a structure that was too large to work with
using the Python scripts I had developed to set up such
simulations. Using Euphoria I was able to rapidly rewrite (and greatly
improve) these scripts and I was thrilled at how rapidly and easily
Euphoria allowed me to do this, but most of all, I was "Euphoric" to
see how fast the new code ran, even before I had compiled it. In a few
seconds,my new Euphoria code can easily prepare an ensemble of half a
million atoms for a molecular dynamics simulation. I never found out
how long this same ensemble took with my old Python script since I
never had the patience to let it finish - but after 1 hour, I was
still waiting! </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>However ... the speed expands the scope of what it's possible to
do and as Matt pointed out, it doesn't take long to push the envelope.
I am already starting to work with larger ensembles of atoms and the
wait time increases with the number of atoms.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Euphoria lets you do stuff you couldn't do otherwise and slowing
it down any would be the opposite direction to the good way forward.
Doing stuff fast is why we use computers in the first place!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></soapbox></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Best</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Gordon</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><B><I>Matt Lewis <guest at RapidEuphoria.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid;
MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">============ The Euphoria Mailing
List ============ <BR><BR><BR>posted by: Matt Lewis
<MATTHEWWALKERLEWIS at yahoo.com><BR><BR>Derek Parnell wrote:<BR>>
<BR>> irv mullins wrote:<BR>> > <BR>> > And even if
speed was an overriding concern when Euphoria was <BR>> >
designed, surely it isn't all that important anymore, when even
<BR>> > the cheap WalMart price-busters run at 2.7 ghz.<BR>>
<BR>> Firstly, I agree with you totally. My opinion is that
Euphoria is more<BR>> than fast enough for any of the application
for which I would choose to<BR>> use it. Making it 50% slower would
still leave it more than fast enough.<BR>> <BR><BR>I agree that
Euphoria is fast enough for *most* things that I like to <BR>do with
it, however, it wouldn't be if it slowed down (especially by<BR>50%).
I write a lot of custom optimization code in Euphoria, and it's
<BR>often right on the edge of being fast enough for some things. If
it <BR>slowed down, I'd have to stop using Euphoria for these tasks
(yes,<BR>even running on 3Ghz machines).<BR><BR>It's mainly the
flexibility/speed combination that I like. I can <BR>develop these
things very quickly, and more of my time is focused on
the<BR>algorithms, rather than data structure or garbage collection,
which <BR>can be really important when you're looking at, say,
hundreds of thousands <BR>or millions of possible
solutions.<BR><BR>I'm sure I'm in the minority on this (although going
by User Contributions,<BR>not totally alone), but thought I'd speak up
for those of us for whom <BR>speed still matters.<BR><BR>Matt
Lewis<BR><BR>--^----------------------------------------------------------------<BR>This
email was sent to: gwalias-bb at yahoo.com<BR><BR>EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click
here: http://topica.com/u/?b1dd66.b7HXOn.Z3dhbGlh<BR>Or send an email
to: EUforum-unsubscribe at topica.com<BR><BR>For Topica's
complete suite of email marketing solutions
visit:<BR>http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER<BR>--^----------------------------------------------------------------<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR>::::::::::
Gordon Webster ::::::::::
--0-400992202-1086181540=:84115--
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
