On 6/20/10 6:08 AM, Nicolas Cellier wrote:
> 2010/6/20 Michael Haupt<mhaupt at gmail.com>:
>    
>> Hi Nicolas,
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Nicolas Cellier
>> <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>      
>>> About 8) :  True, every single operation results in memory allocation
>>> / garbage collection, a burden for number crunching.
>>>        
>> really?
>>
>> There is this nice book by Didier Besset called "Object-Oriented
>> Implementation of Numerical Methods. An Introduction with Java and
>> Smalltalk.: An Introduction with Java and Smalltalk". It can't be
>> *that* bad. :-)
>>
>>      
> Agree, "not worse than Matlab" was the meaning of my message.
>
>    
>>> My own answer was: use C/FORTRAN for optimized number crunching
>>> functions. Use Smalltalk for any higher level/GUI function (via
>>> DLLCC/FFI). We may have more than 1 hammer in your toolset!
>>>        
>> With GPU connectivity things emerging, number crunching might even be
>> an interesting area for Smalltalk.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>      
> Yes, this falls in vectorizing the operations.
> But I would go for a GPU-BLAS implementation available to any language
> (Smalltalk and C as well).
>
> Nicolas
>
>
>    
How many parallel squeak processes would be required to = the speed of 
one native library for arbitrary precision math, or for other math 
intensive purposes?


Lawson