From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,bcdac28207102750
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "James E. Hopper" <hopperj@macconnect.com>
Subject: Re: Ada95 speed
Date: 1999/05/31
Message-ID: <310519991456230875%hopperj@macconnect.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 484179301
Distribution: world
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: <374182F2.B10AD449@Maths.UniNe.CH>
 <3741aa37.3892645@news.pacbell.net> <3741B203.4890880B@Maths.UniNe.CH>
 <7ht4ss$4mu$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3743D5BB.37152F94@gte.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/4.2.2
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-05-31T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <3743D5BB.37152F94@gte.net>, Clifford J. Nelson
<cnelson9@gte.net> wrote:

> Here is the program again with all the crazy Mac operating system stuff.
> The graphics are one hundred times to slow as far as I'm concerned, and
> the other computations are about ten times slower than I expected. The
> "computer revolution" has been smashed by performance problems and you
> will have to "jump through hoops" and "thread needles" to get the
> performance implied by the advertised clock speeds of new computers and
> "compiled" languages.
> 
> Sorry, but, I just had to get that off my chest. The emperor has no
> cloths.
> 
>    Cliff Nelson
> 


Cliff,

When we did the codebuilder port i played with this program, and
optimized it just a bit.  at one point i had it running at least and
order of magnitude faster than you have here.  I could have done much
more  for instance the 5 fold increase someone gave you with the
compuation of the square root was something i never tried so i guess
that would make my original optimized version about 50 times faster
than your current (i am including the graphics in my comparisions)  The
code to do this optimizing totally obsured the basic algorithm.  we
decided as i recall to put stupid dumb code in as we were trying to
give code that beginners to mac programming could learn from rather
than the fastest cleverist fractal algorithms and code around.  

your comment that new machines are not faster than old because you have
to do clever tricks to make them work is way off the mark.  unless you
went through it you have NO idea what gyrations we went through to make
code run fast on those older machines.  My head aches when i think what
i went through getting fast code to run on the old 8 bit processors ;-) 
If anything i have found programmers today are much lazier about
algorithms because they can get away with it more than they used to. 
your whole premise rests on the aburd comparison of comparing this
simple algorith with an unknowns algorithm from years ago.  unless you
can present the source code for your comparison point there is no
validity in your comparison!

Jim