NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/sci/math/symbolic/3041

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-19 | 3.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!gumby!wupost!crcnis1.unl.edu!crcnis1.unl.edu!manager
From: [e-mail] (My Account)
Newsgroups: sci.math.symbolic
Subject: Re: The Real Meaning of Efficiency?  (Re: Serious Programming, etc.)
Date: 19 Nov 1992 17:13:34 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln
Lines: 61
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
NNTP-Posting-Host: ienext.unl.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (BALDEN,
RON) writes:
> Regarding the issue of the relative "efficiency" of programming
languages
> available in different mathematical/symbolic computation systems I would
> note that years ago I started off playing with SMP (and eventually did
some
> real work with it) on a VAX-780 which typically had 20 users; now
> I can run Mathematica on a DECstation 3100 or 5000 all by myself.
> The ratio of the hardware power available to me now to that then is
> something like 50-100; thus differences in the *runtime* "efficiency" of
> programming languages of factors of 4 -- or even more -- in what are
> *supposed to be Very-High Level (VHL) programming languages* (following
> in the lineage of APL, the first widely-used VHL language) --
> leave me quite cold.  What is important to me is the
> total time spent formulating and solving a problem.
>
(More sensible remarks deleted)

I agree with you completely. I find it easier to quickly generate correct
programs in Mathematica than in MAPLE. The fact that these programs then
do not execute as quickly as in MAPLE is *usually* of little significance.
This is because the programs I write are generally one-shot affairs---I
run them once and then they are history. In most other cases when the
program *is* used repeatedly it executes quickly enough that I don't
really care whether it can be made to run even faster. In any case, the
time I spend programming in typically much greater than the time the
computer spends executing my code.

This thinking is just the obvious extension of standard programming
notions. If you want to speed up the execution of a program what do you
do? You profile the program to find out where it is spending most of its
time and then you spend *your* time on improving the execution speed of
*those* parts. Well, if I "profile" the time I spend on a CAS problem I
generally find that the overwhelming majority of time is spent
programming, not executing.

Of course, if you are writing a program or package which will be run many
many times then the balance may shift to where the speed of execution is
more important than the speed of development. And as Ron pointed out, this
is precisely why Mathematica itself has so many lines of C code.

And below, my $.02 worth on a related topic:

IMHO we should steer away from discussion that occasionally verges on "My
CAS is better than yours (Nyah, Nyah, Nyah!)". Certainly both Mathematica
and MAPLE are serious programming systems. Equally certainly, each one is
better at certain tasks than the other. Therefore it is *impossible* to
make a blanket statement that one is better than the other (unless you are
simply firing off flame-bait or releasing pent-up programming
frustration). Let us, instead, educate each other on the respective
benefits to be obtained from each system so that we may all choose the
system which is best for our own needs.

To that end, let me note that the pattern matching abilities of
Mathematica have been invaluable in my development of Operations Research
related notebooks.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Dan Scott   [e-mail]     NeXT mail welcome
--------------------------------------------------------------------------