4 ms·
That's not "C is inefficient", it's "Sequental computation is inefficient". Want a lot of "number-crunching"? Learn CUDA (or similar non-hardware-locked thing).
by Dzugaru 10y ago
That's not "C is inefficient", it's "Sequental computation is inefficient". Want a lot of "number-crunching"? Learn CUDA (or similar non-hardware-locked thing). It's quite simple to get into and you can get orders of magnitude speed boost. Screw Fortran, it's 2016!
- jerf 10y agocough That still amounts to "C is inefficient." You just gave different evidence that makes a lot more sense in 2016 than it would have in 2006.
- Dzugaru 10y agoThe whole point is - it's not about a concrete language (CUDA-C syntax is almost the same as C, you know). It's about the way of thinking and completely different parallel algorithms like Blelloch scan. There is no compiler for any language, which can turn an arbitrary sequental algorithm into parallel, and will never be.