2 ms·
> The proper way to critique these languages IMO is to do benchmarks. For example, the author of the blog post could state specifcially the problem he is trying
by hwayne 9y ago
> The proper way to critique these languages IMO is to do benchmarks. For example, the author of the blog post could state specifcially the problem he is trying to solve and then perform the solution in two languages or more languages, including an APL, including both the code size and the timings.
Here's the hobby thing I'm doing with this. I have an initial investment in Vanguard and contribute X additional per year. I'm at 90/10 stocks/bonds ratio and plan to, between now and retirement, gradually shift to a more conservative ratio. I have a rough distribution of RoR for both stocks and bonds. With all of these constraints in mind, I want run a few thousand simulations of expected savings at retirement. I want to easily compare these simulations to more pessimistic RoRs.
(No real reason, just seems fun.)
I'm pretty far along with the J. I've also written a bit of this of python as comparison, and from what I can tell so far it's an order-of-magnitude difference. I don't know numpy, though, which probably makes a big difference.
In the end, though, the benchmarks don't matter as much to me as the sheer delight in snapping my brain in two.
- noobermin 9y agoI don't program in J, but I breathe numpy. I can tell you that numpy broadcasted operations are probably an order of magnitude faster than explicit for loops in python...simply because numpy is of course written in C.