[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: scheme@mc.lcs.mit.edu*Subject*: Re: Efficiency of Y (Was: Limitation with lambda)*From*: edward@ucbarpa.berkeley.edu (Edward Wang)*Date*: Mon ,14 Nov 88 22:55:51 EDT*Organization*: University of California, Berkeley*References*: <8811142229.AA01756@duchamps.ads.com>*Sender*: scheme-request@mc.lcs.mit.edu

In article <8811142229.AA01756@duchamps.ads.com> you write: > 3. Compute the factorial of a number using each of the three procedures, > timing the results. Make the number large enough so that you can get > a reasonably accurate timing. (I found 100 worked well for MacScheme, > and 1000 for T on my Sun 3.) > >I found performance of the three to be identical, leading me to believe that, >given current Scheme compiler technology, there's no reason to avoid using Y. Wouldn't the time be dominated by bignum arithmetic? A better test would be to go through the iterations without actually computing the factorial.

**References**:**Efficiency of Y (Was: Limitation with lambda)***From:*zodiac!DUCHAMPS.ADS.COM!rar@ames.arpa (Bob Riemenschneider)

- Prev by Date:
**Efficiency of Y (Was: Limitation with lambda)** - Next by Date:
**Scheme Digest #8 , Efficiency of Y** - Previous by thread:
**Efficiency of Y (Was: Limitation with lambda)** - Next by thread:
**Re: Efficiency of Y (Was: Limitation with lambda)** - Index(es):