notes:comporg:projects:pnc2
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| notes:comporg:projects:pnc2 [2018/02/08 01:37] – kbeykirc | notes:comporg:projects:pnc2 [2018/02/11 16:50] (current) – [Benjamin Schultes PNC1:] wedge | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 172: | Line 172: | ||
| As shown in the graph and chart, the C implemented pncs destroyed the other languages in runtime. Compiling with gccO3 gave the best performance in terms of runtime performance. It can be concluded that the lower-level language outperformed the higher-level languages in terms of runtime and qty. | As shown in the graph and chart, the C implemented pncs destroyed the other languages in runtime. Compiling with gccO3 gave the best performance in terms of runtime performance. It can be concluded that the lower-level language outperformed the higher-level languages in terms of runtime and qty. | ||
| - | ===Benjamin Schultes PNC1: === | + | ====Benjamin Schultes PNC1:==== |
| ===All Scripts=== | ===All Scripts=== | ||
| - | [[notes: | + | {{:notes: |
| + | |||
| + | {{: | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{: | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{: | ||
| As expected, the C programs outperformed all other scripts. There isn't a lot of data shown on the chart because many of the C programs had very similar run times. | As expected, the C programs outperformed all other scripts. There isn't a lot of data shown on the chart because many of the C programs had very similar run times. | ||
| Line 193: | Line 200: | ||
| </ | </ | ||
| - | ===Christian Cattell pnc2=== | + | ====Christian Cattell pnc2==== |
| Line 233: | Line 240: | ||
| The trade-off, though, is that some of the higher-level languages looked far nicer than C did (bash being the exception), with the programs looking cleaner and probably more self-explanatory to somebody new to coding. They were also shorter… most of my C programs were around 90 to 100 lines long, most of the other programs a mere 50 to 60 lines. It’s not a huge difference here, but for longer programs the extra space spent on writing functions and generally doing things the “hard” way in C (not to mention the curly braces) could certainly add up. But when pnc1 performance is concerned, C is certainly much better than all of the other languages I used. | The trade-off, though, is that some of the higher-level languages looked far nicer than C did (bash being the exception), with the programs looking cleaner and probably more self-explanatory to somebody new to coding. They were also shorter… most of my C programs were around 90 to 100 lines long, most of the other programs a mere 50 to 60 lines. It’s not a huge difference here, but for longer programs the extra space spent on writing functions and generally doing things the “hard” way in C (not to mention the curly braces) could certainly add up. But when pnc1 performance is concerned, C is certainly much better than all of the other languages I used. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====Kevin Todd (ktodd3)==== | ||
| + | For PNC1 I ended up using PrimeregB instead which gave some different results compared to the others who used Primeregbs | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{: | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Thoughts: | ||
| + | |||
| + | I was surprised by the results of my testing as Java and GO seemed to beat out the others, I expected the C++ to be the most efficient as it is a higher level language. Python was the least efficient which in hind sight isn't very surprising at it was rather easy to use would could mean it's a lower level language but it being ' | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{: | ||
notes/comporg/projects/pnc2.1518053845.txt.gz · Last modified: 2018/02/08 01:37 by kbeykirc
Page Tools
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International
