Mathematica 7 compares to other languages

sln at netherlands.com sln at netherlands.com
Wed Dec 10 03:46:02 CET 2008


On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:01:11 -0800 (PST), Xah Lee <xahlee at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>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
>else.
>
>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.
>
>  Xah
>? http://xahlee.org/
>
>?
Ad hominem



More information about the Python-list mailing list