3 ms·

I was curious how a non-functional version would fare, so I wrote one in Nimrod and it's a lot faster than the functional C++: https://gist.github.com/def-/8187

by defg 12y ago

I was curious how a non-functional version would fare, so I wrote one in Nimrod and it's a lot faster than the functional C++: https://gist.github.com/def-/8187448ea7a5c8da8265 https://gist.github.com/def-/8187448ea7a5c8da8265 Goats Wolves Lions C++11 Nimrod 17 55 6 0.00 0.00 117 155 106 0.17 0.01 217 255 206 0.75 0.01 317 355 306 2.16 0.01 417 455 406 5.28 0.01 517 555 506 10.75 0.01 617 655 606 19.15 0.02 717 755 706 31.58 0.02 817 855 806 46.52 0.02 917 955 906 67.94 0.02 1017 1055 1006 93.75 0.02 2017 2055 2006 731.42 0.04

qznc 12y ago
The important word here is "functional" C++. This is not about "fastest" C++. What does your comparison tell us?
- taeric 12y ago
  That functional might not be the best damned paradigm on the planet for every use case? :)
- mimog 12y ago
  It tells us that nimrod is pretty fast.
defg 12y ago
As some people noticed this was broken. Fixed version is not quite as fast, but still faster than functional C++: Goats Wolves Lions C++11 Nimrod 17 55 6 0.00 0.03 117 155 106 0.17 0.13 217 255 206 0.75 0.62 317 355 306 2.16 1.89 417 455 406 5.28 4.34 517 555 506 10.75 8.42 617 655 606 19.15 14.45 717 755 706 31.58 23.04 817 855 806 46.52 33.69 917 955 906 67.94 48.57 1017 1055 1006 93.75 65.25 2017 2055 2006 731.42 500.95
defg 12y ago
And a functional version in Nimrod: https://gist.github.com/def-/ccef8bb54170b639c497 https://gist.github.com/def-/ccef8bb54170b639c497