<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.6" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Ramble Chronicles:  Efficient Matrices</title>
	<link>http://www.foothills.wjduquette.com/blog/archives/934</link>
	<description>This and that, now and then.  Mostly book reviews, with the occasional descent into whimsy</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:16:37 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.6</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Will Duquette</title>
		<link>http://www.foothills.wjduquette.com/blog/archives/934#comment-903</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Jan 2005 02:01:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.foothills.wjduquette.com/blog/archives/934#comment-903</guid>
					<description>Hey, Michael!  Happy New Year yourself.

I've tried a couple of fori approaches, and both have been a little over 10x slower than the standard for loop on my benchmark, which is iterating over and summing the elements of a 4*4 matrix (as defined in this post).  I'm very curious to see your implementation.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey, Michael!  Happy New Year yourself.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve tried a couple of fori approaches, and both have been a little over 10x slower than the standard for loop on my benchmark, which is iterating over and summing the elements of a 4*4 matrix (as defined in this post).  I&#8217;m very curious to see your implementation.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Michael A. Cleverly</title>
		<link>http://www.foothills.wjduquette.com/blog/archives/934#comment-902</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Dec 2004 21:55:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.foothills.wjduquette.com/blog/archives/934#comment-902</guid>
					<description>Will,

Great stuff!  Regarding your fori implementation that is a lot slower--how much slower is it?  

I've played around a bit with various fori implementations.  My initial (naive) approach was almost 10x slower than [for] itself.  I've improved to where I've now got a version that only takes 1.5x as long (on a range of 1-1000 my [fori] takes 1514 microseconds compared to 1007 microseconds for [for]).

Happy New Year.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Will,</p>
<p>Great stuff!  Regarding your fori implementation that is a lot slower&#8211;how much slower is it?  </p>
<p>I&#8217;ve played around a bit with various fori implementations.  My initial (naive) approach was almost 10x slower than [for] itself.  I&#8217;ve improved to where I&#8217;ve now got a version that only takes 1.5x as long (on a range of 1-1000 my [fori] takes 1514 microseconds compared to 1007 microseconds for [for]).</p>
<p>Happy New Year.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
