Below is a Clojure solution that runs in 8.58 microseconds on my
machine. I only did it for the 40, 3 case. Records are linked. The
list reduction solution runs in 23.4 and the element recursion in 27.3
--art
(defrecord Soldier [val r])
(def v (vec (map #(Soldier. % (inc %)) (range 40))))
(def v2 (assoc v 39 (Soldier. 39 0)))
(defn move [v i]
(let [r1 (v i) r2 (:r (v (:r r1)))]
[(:r (v r2)) (assoc v (:r r1) (Soldier. (:val r1) (:r (v
r2))))]
))
(defn joe [v]
(loop [v v i 0 count 39]
(if (zero? count)
(inc i)
(let [[a b] (move v i)]
(recur b a (dec count))))))
(prn (joe v2))
(let [start (System/currentTimeMillis) iterations 100000]
(doseq [i (range 100000)] (joe v2))
(let [end (System/currentTimeMillis)]
(println (/ (* (- end start) 1000.00) iterations) "
microseconds")))
On Aug 18, 12:40 am, Roberto Mannai <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello,
> I recently stumbled upon this
> page:http://java.dzone.com/articles/contrasting-performance
> They are comparing several languages (Java, Scala, Python, Erlang,
> Clojure, Ruby, Groovy, Javascript), and Clojure rated very badly:
>
> Object Oriented List Reduction
> Element Recursion
> Java 1.6 0.637 1.435
> 2.816
> Clojure 1.2.1 - 25.966
> 28.753
>
> Maybe the clojure's scripts were not very idiomatic? If some guru
> wants to check them, here's the source code:
> -https://github.com/dnene/josephus/blob/master/element-recursion/josep...
> - https://github.com/dnene/josephus/blob/master/list-reduction/josephus...
>
> All the best,
> Roberto
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
