Timing comparison for diffeq program in c++, Maple and Maxima

Dennis Darland <dennis.darland at yahoo.com> writes:
> I ran a timing test comparison for c++, Maple and Maxima.
> All three programs generated by omnisode - a set of Ruby programs.
> Set time limit to 1 minute.
> Maximum iteration was sufficient to solve entire problem.
> Problem was sin.ode for all three.
> Output was redirected to file only - none to screen
> Results:
> c++ solved entire problem in 23 seconds (140001 iterations)
> Maple performed 11542 iterations in 60 seconds
> Maxima performed 372 iterations in 60 seconds
> That amounts to:
> c++ 6,087 iterations/second
> Maple 192 iterations/second
> Maxima 6.2 iterations/second
> c++ is almost 32 times faster than Maple which is almost 31 times faster than Maxima.
> So c++ is almost 982 times faster than Maxima.
>
> More info on omnisode at:
> http://sode.sourceforge.net/

Right, I just tried to look up the Maxima code you're generating and
found things like [1]. Since I'm clearly not going to read through that
carefully, and I presume no-one else is either, can you explain exactly
what you're measuring?

Your code looks to me like a C/FORTRAN program translated to
Maxima. Unsurprisingly, it runs very slowly. What are you actually
trying to do? What capabilities of Maple or Maxima are you using other
than basic arithmetic?

Or should we interpret your message as

  "Writing bare-metal calculations in Maple and running them is
   marginally less slow that writing them in Maxima and running
   them. But it would have been easier to do it in C anyway"

 ?


Rupert

[1] http://sode.sourceforge.net/omniresults/special_cases_007/diffeq.tan_sqrt_lin.mxt.txt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 315 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.math.utexas.edu/pipermail/maxima/attachments/20120809/9eb94730/attachment.pgp>;