Red Programming Language main discussion room (mostly for questions about Red sources, Red language design, community organisation,...).
Writing to file is faster in Red as well, by 1.04 over Rebol.
I've ran like 10 of these now, and in general, Red is 4x slower, which we knew, and yeah, who needs to do a:1 100,000 times in a row. It's not a deal breaker.
These two are weird;
a: 1 - 5x slower in Reda: 1 + 1 - 2.4x slower in Red
Hey, going back to my marketing rant the other day, there's a ton of free low-hanging fruit out there to promote Red. Here's one example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_programming_languages_(array)
profile. :^)Count: 10000
Time | Time (Per) | Memory | Code
0:00:00 | 0:00:00 | 284 | [blk/:key]
0:00:00.002 | 0:00:00 | 440 | [e-funk "bob" "email"] ; empty func
0:00:00.012 | 0:00:00 | 1200284 | [rejoin [s1 "-" p1]]
0:00:00.424 | 0:00:00 | 1016504 | [to-word rejoin [s1 "-" p1]]
0:00:00.425 | 0:00:00 | -1646932 | [to word! rejoin [s1 "-" p1]]
0:00:00.435 | 0:00:00 | -1383324 | [dafunk "bob" "email"]Edited this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_programming_languages_(array)
The Redbol languages really stand out. (if you see any errors, let me know)
Memory is simply a stats call and diff, so can vary depending on GC, etc.
Thanks for the wikipedia update. copy/part is tricky, because it's richer in Red than other langs. I also don't know if 1..10 range syntax in some langs can use vars (m..n) or alternate syntax for that.
Like I said, it's not a deal breaker, with one or two exceptions, there's workarounds as well. By going through the conversation, I've found an alternative that's suits my desired purpose even better.
But that was never the point. I expected Red to be 4x faster than Rebol, not the other way around.
And hopefully one day it will be. But I don't think, ah, good enough is a good response.
return early once we hit a distance of 2 because the one we found earlier with a distance of 1 we already know is a better match
Yes, a good idea.
I myself was using the OSA variant of Levenshtein's to compare 2 file name lists (names can be 100 chars easily), where I used another optimization: if number of errors exceeds a given limit (during the metric computation), consider them a zero match and continue with the other candidates (reducing the time required by ~2 orders of magnitude). The use case here is not looking for a best match, but for a set of acceptable matches (it turns out that in practice everything <0.7 is false matches). Still, it's pretty dumb to compare lists like this. Just the easiest to implement solution, not the optimal one.
loop function itself that's killing it?
@greggirwin I have tried 'small tight loop tests a number of times'.. which brings up another issue I've found is time/precise doesn't seem to kick in until a certain time has passed?
a: 1
timeit 1000 0.000 seconds
timeit 10000 0.0010009 seconds.Shouldn't that first value be 0.0001000 ?
By advice, I'm guess you're referring to my 'tip'.
It's a joke.
'in the usual notation of arithmetic, the expression 1 + 2 × 3 is well-formed...' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expression_(mathematics)
I posted this particular observation to try to determine if this is an issue or not, and if not, why does it happen? Is it my method?
I thought we had hi res timing on windows since red/red#3476 was merged. If that's not the case, it's an OS limitation on Windows.
To speed up your code, use an expression when assigning an integer to a word.
Makes it sound authoritative.
On math, if you're referring to precedence of operators, Red is strictly left-to-right in this regard. If you want precedence, use parens or the math dialect.
profile if you don't know better. https://gist.github.com/giesse/1232d7f71a15a3a8417ec6f091398811
Forget all that, the real elephant in the room... a 37mb data file (a block of strings) that takes over 3 minutes to load, and once loaded, consumes nearly 400mb of system memory.. according to my math, that's 10mb per 1mb of data. Once it's loaded, it's absolutely blazing. Find a string among 3M strings in 1ns.
The load time seems to be exponential? I tried to load a 84mb file, and gave up after a half hour. It was loading at 1 mb per 10 seconds.
If I 'didn't know better', I would say that's a big issue. And I know you're working on it, but this...
"it means that with an optimizing backend (Red/Pro), our lexer will be 4-8 times faster than R3's. It should then be possible to load gigabytes of Red data in memory in just a few seconds (using the future 64-bit version)"
Pro only? ETA on 64-bit version?
fast-lexer branch, which should address exactly this issue: https://github.com/red/red/tree/fast-lexer
key: "abc" it does not consume just 4 bytes like in C.