Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- notes:comporg:projects:pnc2 [2018/02/08 12:52] – [Kevin Todd (ktodd3)] ktodd3
+++ 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.
-===Benjamin Schultes PNC1: ===
+====Benjamin Schultes PNC1:====
 ===All Scripts===
-[[notes:comporg:projects|bschulte1.png]]
+{{:notes:comporg:projects:bschulte1.png?400|}}
+{{:notes:comporg:projects:bschulte2.png?400|}}
+{{:notes:comporg:projects:bschulte3.png?400|}}
+{{:notes:comporg:projects:bschulte4.png?400|}}
 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: @@
 </code>
-===Christian Cattell pnc2===
+====Christian Cattell pnc2====
@@ Line 242: / Line 249: @@
 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 'easy' doesn't guarantee that it's a low level language. On the note of why C++ lost could be to a bunch of different factors; one reason it lost out may be due to how I coded the program in the other languages. I may have been able to unintentionally make the other code slightly more efficient while my original was lacking, however I don't think is the right answer as I tried to keep the code very similar and didn't have too much trouble to do so. Another idea as to why C lost out might be attributed to calculating, I used Primeregb which only breaks when it finds out it's not a prime, it does not use the square root trick. Maybe C++ is much more efficient at using the square-root in calculations and that is why when used it shines. Also the number of primes I reached were pretty low compared to other student's so C++ also didn't get a chance to show what it can do in longer term calculations.
+{{:notes:comporg:projects:pnc2plots.png?|}}

Lab46 Wiki

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools