Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!KLEPH.AI.MIT.EDU!cph
From: cph@KLEPH.AI.MIT.EDU (Chris Hanson)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Subject: Scheme Digest #8, Efficiency of Y
Message-ID: <8811161012.AA13091@kleph.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 16 Nov 88 10:12:11 GMT
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: cph@zurich.ai.mit.edu
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 22


   Date: Tue, 15 Nov 88 10:26:46 EST
   From: kranz@wheaties.ai.mit.edu (David Kranz)

   Edward Wang is correct that the time in the example is dominated by
   bignum arithmetic.  I changed the * in factorial to + and got the
   following result in T3.1:

I tried a similar experiment in MIT Scheme (using + instead of *,
except a smaller loop to account for smaller fixnums), with the
following results:

    (factorial-loop 100) -> 1.03 msec

    (factorial-rec 100) -> 1.0 msec

    (factorial-lfp 100) -> 2.74 msec

Bill Rozas has expended no small effort in the MIT Scheme compiler to
make the Y combinator produce good results, and these timings are
evidence of that.  Still not perfect, but I believe Bill claims that
he can make the output code identical given a bit more work.