Mathematica 7 compares to other languages
xahlee at gmail.com
Wed Dec 10 00:01:11 CET 2008
On Dec 8, 4:56 pm, Jon Harrop <j... at ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> Xah Lee wrote:
> > A moron, wrote:
> > > You failed the challenge that you were given.
> > you didn't give me a challenge.
> Thomas gave you the challenge:
> "What I want in return is you to execute and time Dr. Harrop's original
> code, posting the results to this thread... By Dr. Harrop's original code,
> I specifically mean the code he posted to this thread. I've pasted it below
> for clarity.".
> Thomas even quoted my code verbatim to make his requirements totally
> unambiguous. Note the parameters [9, 512, 4] in the last line that he and I
> both gave:
> AbsoluteTiming[Export["image.pgm", Graphics at Raster@Main[9, 512, 4]]]
> You have not posted timings of that, let alone optimized it. So you failed.
The first parameter to your Main specifies some kinda recursively
stacked spheres in the rendered image. The second parameter is the
width and height of the pixels in the rendered image.
I tried to run them but my computer went 100% cpu and after i recall 5
min its still going. So, i reduced your input. In the end, with
reduced input, it shows my code is 5 times faster (running Mathematica
v4 on OS X 10.4.x with PPC 1.9 GHz), and on the other guy's computer
with Mathematica 6 he says it's twice as fast.
Given your code's nature, it is reasonably to assume that with your
original input my code would still be faster than yours. You claim it
is not or that it is perhaps just slightly faster?
It is possible you are right. I don't want to spend the energy to run
your code and my code and possible hog my computer for hours or
perhaps days. As i said, your recursive Intersect is very badly
written Mathematica code. It might even start memory swapping.
Also, all you did is talking bullshit. Thomas actually is the one took
my challenge to you and gave me $20 to prove my argument to YOU. His
requirement, after the payment, is actually, i quote:
«Alright, I've sent $20. The only reason I would request a refund is
if you don't do anything. As long as you improve the code as you've
described and post the results, I'll be satisfied. If the improvements
you've described don't result in better performance, that's OK.»
He haven't posted since nor emailed me. It is reasonable to assume he
is satisfied as far as his payment to me to see my code goes.
You, kept on babbling. Now you say that the input is different. Fine.
How long does that input actually take on your computer? If days, i'm
sorry i cannot run your toy code on my computer for days. If in few
hours, i can then run the code overnight, and if necessary, give you
another version that will be faster with your given input to shut you
the fuck up.
However, there's cost to me. What do i get to do your homework? It is
possible, that if i spend the energy and time to do this, then you
again refuse to acknowledge it, or kept on complaining about something
You see, newsgroup is the bedrock of bullshit. You bullshit, he
bullshits, everybody brags and bullshit because there is no stake. I
want sincerity and responsibility backed up, with for example paypal
deposits. You kept on bullshitting, Thomas gave me $20 and i produced
a code that reasonably demonstrated at least how unprofessional your
Mathematica code was.
Here's the deal. Pay me $20, then i'll creat a version of Mathematica
code that has the same input as yours. Your input is Main[9, 512, 4],
as i have exposed, your use of interger in the last part for numerical
computation is Mathematica incompetence. You didn't acknowledge even
this. I'll give a version of Mathematica with input Main[9, 512, 4.]
that will run faster than yours. If not, money back guaranteed. Also,
pay me $300, then i can produce a Mathematica version no more than 10
times slower than your OCaml code, this should be a 70000 times
improvement according to you. Again, money back guarantee.
If i don't receive $20 or $300, this will be my last post to you in
this thread. You are just a bullshitter.
O wait... my code with Main[9, 512, 4.] and other numerical changes
already makes your program run faster regardless of the input size.
What a motherfucking bullshit you are. Scratch the $20. The $300
challenge still stands firm.
More information about the Python-list