Comparison Ruby, Python, Php, Groovy ecc.

Discussion in 'Ruby' started by Marco Mastrodonato, Aug 24, 2009.

  1. Marco Mastrodonato, Aug 24, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Are those executables compiled with identical compilers + compile flags?

    Marco Mastrodonato wrote:
    > Comparison script languages for the fractal geometry, these are the
    > languages i tested:
    >
    > Java
    > Lua 5.1.4
    > Php 5.3.0
    > Python 2.6.2
    > Python 3.1.1
    > Jython 2.5.0
    > Groovy 1.6.3
    > Jruby 1.3.1
    > Ruby 1.9.1 p129
    > Ruby 1.8.6 p368
    > Ruby 1.8.6 p111
    > IronRuby 0.9.0
    > IronPython 2.0.2
    > Perl 5.10.0
    >
    > Let me know yours comment
    >
    > http://mastrodonato.info/index.php/...t-languages-for-the-fractal-geometry/?lang=en
     
    Urabe Shyouhei, Aug 24, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Marco Mastrodonato

    Marc Heiler Guest

    Two things I notice.

    It seems ruby 1.9 indeed managed to keep up with the python versions
    more than the older ruby versions. And it seems to be (almost) as fast
    as perl for that test.

    The other thing, which is very strange, is that the ironruby
    implementation is significantly slower than ironpython, whereas the
    other versions arent by as much. What is wrong here?

    IronRuby 0.9.0 6,038 39x
    IronPyhon 2.0.2 0,978 6x

    vs

    Ruby 1.9.1 p129 2,688 18x
    Python 3.1.1 1,566 10x
    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
     
    Marc Heiler, Aug 24, 2009
    #3
  4. Urabe Shyouhei <> writes:

    > Are those executables compiled with identical compilers + compile flags?


    The question is understandable, but these implementation might very
    well be written in different languages, so it doesn't really matter.
    We can assume that they are as much as possible, if they come from a
    common distribution.

    > Marco Mastrodonato wrote:
    >> Comparison script languages for the fractal geometry, these are the
    >> languages i tested:
    >>
    >> Java
    >> Lua 5.1.4
    >> Php 5.3.0
    >> Python 2.6.2
    >> Python 3.1.1
    >> Jython 2.5.0
    >> Groovy 1.6.3
    >> Jruby 1.3.1
    >> Ruby 1.9.1 p129
    >> Ruby 1.8.6 p368
    >> Ruby 1.8.6 p111
    >> IronRuby 0.9.0
    >> IronPython 2.0.2
    >> Perl 5.10.0
    >>
    >> Let me know yours comment
    >>
    >> http://mastrodonato.info/index.php/...t-languages-for-the-fractal-geometry/?lang=en



    I added a comment to the web site, but I'm not sure it was taken into
    account (I didn't got the same feed back as for a second shorter
    comment). So here it is again:


    For completeness, could you please try Common Lisp too?

    You could use sbcl 1.0.29 (MS-Windows port in progress) at:
    http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/sbcl/sbcl-1.0.29-x86-windows-binary.msi


    -------(bench1.lisp)----------------------------------------------------
    (declaim (optimize (speed 3) (space 2) (debug 0) (safety 0)))
    (declaim (ftype (function (single-float single-float) fixnum) iterate))

    (defparameter *bailout* 16.0)
    (defparameter *max-iterations* 1000)


    (defun bench1 ()
    (format t "Rendering...~%") (force-output)
    (loop :for y fixnum :from -39 to 39 :do
    (terpri)
    (loop :for x fixnum :from -39 to 39 :do
    (princ (if (zerop (iterate (the single-float (/ x 40.0))
    (the single-float (/ y 40.0))))
    "*"
    " "))))
    (finish-output))

    (defun iterate (x y)
    (declare (single-float x y))
    (loop
    :with cr single-float = (- y 0.5)
    :with ci single-float = x
    :with zi single-float = 0.0
    :with zr single-float = 0.0
    :for i fixnum :from 0 :below *max-iterations*
    :do (let ((temp (* zr zi))
    (zr2 (* zr zr))
    (zi2 (* zi zi)))
    (declare (single-float temp zr2 zi2))
    (setf zr (+ (- zr2 zi2) cr)
    zi (+ temp temp ci))
    (when (< (the single-float *bailout*) (the single-float (+ zi2 zr2)))
    (return-from iterate i)))
    :finally (return-from iterate 0)))


    (time (bench1))
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Run the test with:

    sbcl --no-userinit --eval '(load (compile-file "bench1.lisp"))' --eval '(quit)'

    --
    __Pascal Bourguignon__
     
    Pascal J. Bourguignon, Aug 24, 2009
    #4
  5. Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
    > Urabe Shyouhei <> writes:
    >
    >> Are those executables compiled with identical compilers + compile flags?

    >
    > The question is understandable, but these implementation might very
    > well be written in different languages, so it doesn't really matter.
    > We can assume that they are as much as possible, if they come from a
    > common distribution.


    It does matter very much. At least identical ones should be used for each
    underlying languages to write them. The report says that test was held on
    Windows XP, so I suspect there is no such thing as "a common distribution" on it.
     
    Urabe Shyouhei, Aug 24, 2009
    #5
  6. Urabe Shyouhei wrote:
    > Are those executables compiled with identical compilers + compile flags?


    Ruby p111 is mswin32 (onclick installer) the others are mingw32
    downloaded from http://rubyinstaller.org/downloads/
    Iron and java version, Python, groovy, php ...was been downloaded from
    main site. The perl's exe is strawberry's installation. Java was been
    compiled by netbeans.
    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
     
    Marco Mastrodonato, Aug 24, 2009
    #6
  7. Marc Heiler wrote:
    > Two things I notice.
    >
    > It seems ruby 1.9 indeed managed to keep up with the python versions
    > more than the older ruby versions. And it seems to be (almost) as fast
    > as perl for that test.
    >
    > The other thing, which is very strange, is that the ironruby
    > implementation is significantly slower than ironpython, whereas the
    > other versions arent by as much. What is wrong here?
    >


    1. Python is still faster, but version 1.9.1 goes very well catching up
    good results, goes better than perl, its script was been very optimized
    to get that result, 2.7s against 4s of the normal version.

    2. I think there aren't correlation between these versions: Ironruby,
    ironpython, ruby and python are different projects and with different
    development.
    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
     
    Marco Mastrodonato, Aug 24, 2009
    #7
  8. Marco Mastrodonato wrote:
    > Urabe Shyouhei wrote:
    >> Are those executables compiled with identical compilers + compile flags?

    >
    > Ruby p111 is mswin32 (onclick installer) the others are mingw32
    > downloaded from http://rubyinstaller.org/downloads/
    > Iron and java version, Python, groovy, php ...was been downloaded from
    > main site. The perl's exe is strawberry's installation. Java was been
    > compiled by netbeans.


    So the next thing you should do is to recompile by yourself to uniform
    compilation environment among them. Fairness is the most essential part when
    you want to do an emotional Yo-Yo on a benchmark like that.

    And luckily, all implementations nominated are open sourced.
     
    Urabe Shyouhei, Aug 24, 2009
    #8
  9. Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
    > I added a comment to the web site, but I'm not sure it was taken into
    > account (I didn't got the same feed back as for a second shorter
    > comment). So here it is again:
    >
    >
    > For completeness, could you please try Common Lisp too?


    I got only the second comment, anyway, i'll add lisp asap and thanks for
    your work
    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
     
    Marco Mastrodonato, Aug 24, 2009
    #9
  10. Marco Mastrodonato

    lith Guest

    > Lua 5.1.4

    Does this make use of the lua jit[1]?

    BTW I'm not so sure that the type statements in groovy make the code
    run faster. IIRC with older versions they simply introduced type
    checks that had the adverse effect.

    [1] http://luajit.org
     
    lith, Aug 24, 2009
    #10
  11. Urabe Shyouhei wrote:
    > So the next thing you should do is to recompile by yourself to uniform
    > compilation environment among them. cut ...


    Yes i could do that but will be a different comparison. I don't think
    there are many people who compile themself from the sources, on windows
    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
     
    Marco Mastrodonato, Aug 24, 2009
    #11
  12. Marco Mastrodonato

    Guest

    On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Marco
    Mastrodonato<> wrote:
    > Urabe Shyouhei wrote:
    >> So the next thing you should do is to recompile by yourself to uniform
    >> compilation environment among them. =A0cut ...

    >
    > Yes i could do that but will be a different comparison. I don't think
    > there are many people who compile themself from the sources, on windows


    Another thing to consider when running the benchmark runs to not write
    the program output to the console (e.g. ./program > /dev/null or
    program.exe > NUL). Presumably the intention is to compare the speed
    of the implementations calculating the result and not test how fast
    the desktop environment can display the result. While it may not in
    all cases make a significant difference in the results, it is best to
    remove that variable from the test.

    For example, in one case I saw a benchmark that claimed something to
    the effect of "look BRANDX is not slow: this program in BRANDX is only
    slightly slower than C!". But, on closer examination it took the C
    program less than 1 second to calculate the result and it took the
    BRANDX program a few seconds to calculate the result; but, in both
    cases, it took cmd.exe many seconds to display the result.

    Using your Java program* (10 runs):
    Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. Std-dev
    158.0 178.8 196.5 195.6 205.5 249.0 27.37882

    and, sending out to to /dev/null:
    Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. Std-dev
    106.0 108.2 109.0 109.0 110.0 112.0 1.699673

    [*] Modified to send the time output to standard error
     
    , Aug 24, 2009
    #12
  13. unknown wrote:

    > Another thing to consider when running the benchmark runs to not write
    > the program output to the console


    unknown, thanks for your advice. I agree with you, i didn't care to test
    the stdout write speed. Honestly i tried to write into a variable and
    send to output only at the end... i saw there was no difference (ruby's
    script) and i went back to the original, more nice to use because you
    can early feel the speed. In your test, instead, there's a discrete
    difference

    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
     
    Marco Mastrodonato, Aug 24, 2009
    #13
  14. Marco Mastrodonato wrote:
    > Urabe Shyouhei wrote:
    >> So the next thing you should do is to recompile by yourself to uniform
    >> compilation environment among them. cut ...

    >
    > Yes i could do that but will be a different comparison. I don't think
    > there are many people who compile themself from the sources, on windows


    If you really need speed recompiling is the easiest way to achieve it. Does it
    really worth comparing those executables? Their "slowness" might be sourced
    from a bad compilation. I don't know about other language but 1.8.6-p111
    versus 1.8.6-p368 case is (I believe) due to difference of their compilers.
    What is your point on that article, then? Are you really comparing languages?
    not compilers behind them?
     
    Urabe Shyouhei, Aug 24, 2009
    #14
  15. Urabe Shyouhei wrote:
    > If you really need speed recompiling is the easiest way to achieve it.


    The aim is a languages's comparison, using the downlodable package
    ...without the need to compile every interpreter. I could be agree with
    you about a "real comparison", but this is the practise done by the
    99,5% of the windows users.

    @Pascal
    Sorry, i'm having some trouble with lisp, have i to use the txt format?
    Or have i to compile it first? Take a look:

    C:\Lavoro\Progetti\Test\Bench\multilanguage>sbcl --no-userinit --eval
    '(load (compile-file "bench1.lisp"))' --eval '(quit)'
    This is SBCL 1.0.29, an implementation of ANSI Common Lisp.
    More information about SBCL is available at <http://www.sbcl.org/>.

    SBCL is free software, provided as is, with absolutely no warranty.
    It is mostly in the public domain; some portions are provided under
    BSD-style licenses. See the CREDITS and COPYING files in the
    distribution for more information.

    This is experimental prerelease support for the Windows platform: use
    at your own risk. "Your Kitten of Death awaits!"

    debugger invoked on a END-OF-FILE:
    end of file on #<SB-IMPL::STRING-INPUT-STREAM {23B59BD1}>

    Type HELP for debugger help, or (SB-EXT:QUIT) to exit from SBCL.

    restarts (invokable by number or by possibly-abbreviated name):
    0: [CONTINUE] Ignore runtime option --eval "'(load".
    1: [ABORT ] Skip rest of --eval and --load options.
    2: Skip to toplevel READ/EVAL/PRINT loop.
    3: [QUIT ] Quit SBCL (calling #'QUIT, killing the process).

    (SB-IMPL::STRING-INCH #<SB-IMPL::STRING-INPUT-STREAM {23B59BD1}> T NIL)
    0]
    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
     
    Marco Mastrodonato, Aug 24, 2009
    #15
  16. I just ran a few of these benchmarks on my machine. I got different results
    Linux 2.6.28-11-generic GNU/Linux
    Intel core 2 duo 2GHz, 2MB L2 cache, 3GB ram DDR

    Language Time for 100 iterations times slower than java with
    -server java1.6 =96server 0.18 1 Ruby1.8 7.78 44.07 Ruby1.9.2 4.2 23.78
    Jruby 2.5 14.16 Jruby1.3.1=97sever 2.31 13.1 java1.6 -client
    0.18 1.01 python 2.6.2
    3.04 17.21






















    Jruby is the fastest here with 13 times slower than java. I am sure there
    are other command line options which may allow jruby to perform faster, tha=
    t
    I am not aware of. Also shows ruby1.9.2 is slower than python 2.6.2


    On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Marco Mastrodonato <
    > wrote:

    > Urabe Shyouhei wrote:
    > > If you really need speed recompiling is the easiest way to achieve it.

    >
    > The aim is a languages's comparison, using the downlodable package
    > ...without the need to compile every interpreter. I could be agree with
    > you about a "real comparison", but this is the practise done by the
    > 99,5% of the windows users.
    >
    > @Pascal
    > Sorry, i'm having some trouble with lisp, have i to use the txt format?
    > Or have i to compile it first? Take a look:
    >
    > C:\Lavoro\Progetti\Test\Bench\multilanguage>sbcl --no-userinit --eval
    > '(load (compile-file "bench1.lisp"))' --eval '(quit)'
    > This is SBCL 1.0.29, an implementation of ANSI Common Lisp.
    > More information about SBCL is available at <http://www.sbcl.org/>.
    >
    > SBCL is free software, provided as is, with absolutely no warranty.
    > It is mostly in the public domain; some portions are provided under
    > BSD-style licenses. See the CREDITS and COPYING files in the
    > distribution for more information.
    >
    > This is experimental prerelease support for the Windows platform: use
    > at your own risk. "Your Kitten of Death awaits!"
    >
    > debugger invoked on a END-OF-FILE:
    > end of file on #<SB-IMPL::STRING-INPUT-STREAM {23B59BD1}>
    >
    > Type HELP for debugger help, or (SB-EXT:QUIT) to exit from SBCL.
    >
    > restarts (invokable by number or by possibly-abbreviated name):
    > 0: [CONTINUE] Ignore runtime option --eval "'(load".
    > 1: [ABORT ] Skip rest of --eval and --load options.
    > 2: Skip to toplevel READ/EVAL/PRINT loop.
    > 3: [QUIT ] Quit SBCL (calling #'QUIT, killing the process).
    >
    > (SB-IMPL::STRING-INCH #<SB-IMPL::STRING-INPUT-STREAM {23B59BD1}> T NIL)
    > 0]
    > --
    > Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
    >
    >
     
    Piyush Ranjan, Aug 25, 2009
    #16
  17. Okay that table got completely screwed. I will try once more or you
    may get these results here http://pastie.org/594583


    Language Time for 100 iterations Times slower
    than java with -server
    java1.6 =96server 0.18 1
    Ruby1.8.7 7.78 44.07
    Ruby1.9.2 4.2 23.78
    Jruby 2.5 14.16
    Jruby1.3.1=97sever 2.31 13.1
    java1.6 -client 0.18 1.01
    python 2.6.2 3.04 17.21


    Jruby is the fastest here with 13 times slower than java. I am sure there
    are other command line options which may allow jruby to perform faster, th=
    at
    I am not aware of. Also shows ruby1.9.2 is slower than python 2.6.2



    On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:54 AM, Piyush Ranjan <> wrote:
    >
    > I just ran a few of these benchmarks on my machine. I got different resul=

    ts
    > Linux 2.6.28-11-generic GNU/Linux
    > Intel core 2 duo 2GHz, 2MB L2 cache, 3GB ram DDR
    >
    > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Language Time for 100 iterations times slower than java w=

    ith
    > -server =A0java1.6 =96server 0.18 1 =A0Ruby1.8 7.78 44.07 =A0Ruby1.9.2 4.=

    2 23.78
    > Jruby 2.5 14.16 =A0Jruby1.3.1=97sever 2.31 13.1 =A0java1.6 -client
    > 0.18 1.01 =A0python 2.6.2
    > 3.04 17.21
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Jruby is the fastest here with 13 times slower than java. I am sure there
    > are other command line options which may allow jruby to perform faster, t=

    hat
    > I am not aware of. Also shows ruby1.9.2 is slower than python 2.6.2
    >
    >
    > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Marco Mastrodonato <
    > > wrote:
    >
    > > Urabe Shyouhei wrote:
    > > > If you really need speed recompiling is the easiest way to achieve it=
     
    Piyush Ranjan, Aug 25, 2009
    #17
  18. Marco Mastrodonato

    Nathan Keel Guest

    Marco Mastrodonato wrote:

    > Comparison script languages for the fractal geometry, these are the
    > languages i tested:
    >
    > Java
    > Lua 5.1.4
    > Php 5.3.0
    > Python 2.6.2
    > Python 3.1.1
    > Jython 2.5.0
    > Groovy 1.6.3
    > Jruby 1.3.1
    > Ruby 1.9.1 p129
    > Ruby 1.8.6 p368
    > Ruby 1.8.6 p111
    > IronRuby 0.9.0
    > IronPython 2.0.2
    > Perl 5.10.0
    >
    > Let me know yours comment
    >
    >

    http://mastrodonato.info/index.php/...t-languages-for-the-fractal-geometry/?lang=en

    A decent try and honest, but there are too many variables involved.
    Even a quick look at the Perl code could use a little fine tuning (it
    looked like v4 code in a lot of ways (from 15 years ago), improperly
    using local, etc.), and where there are wasteful assignments (not a big
    deal). I'd recommend posting the code in their respective news groups
    and asking for any advice on how to speed up the code/write it more
    efficiently, and see what people come up with. Implementing the same
    code essentially the same way in different languages may show a slower
    time elapsed, but perhaps if you recoded it in a way to take advantage
    of that language you would see some (slightly, but important)
    differences in your results. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what
    you're doing here and it's a good attempt, I just think there are too
    many variables. I haven't ran Windows for a long time, but I wouldn't
    be surprised if a *nix variant provided different results (I know it
    does for me on Linux using a very comparable system). For that matter,
    you might offer something in C and C++ to compare to compiled Java,
    unless you believe that those aren't viable comparison languages for
    some reason? (If so, know that myself and many others develop online
    and offline using them, because they are faster and sometimes that's
    important with huge trafficked sites where every tiny otherwise trivial
    thing makes a difference).
     
    Nathan Keel, Aug 25, 2009
    #18
  19. Marco Mastrodonato

    Guest

    On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Nathan Keel<> wrote:
    > Marco Mastrodonato wrote:
    >> Comparison script languages for the fractal geometry, these are the
    >> languages i tested:
    >>
    >> Java
    >> Lua 5.1.4
    >> Php 5.3.0
    >> Python 2.6.2
    >> Python 3.1.1
    >> Jython 2.5.0
    >> Groovy 1.6.3
    >> Jruby 1.3.1
    >> Ruby 1.9.1 p129
    >> Ruby 1.8.6 p368
    >> Ruby 1.8.6 p111
    >> IronRuby 0.9.0
    >> IronPython 2.0.2
    >> Perl 5.10.0
    >>
    >> Let me know yours comment
    >>
    >> http://mastrodonato.info/index.php/2009/08/comparison-script-languages-f=

    or-the-fractal-geometry/?lang=3Den
    >
    > A decent try and honest, but there are too many variables involved.
    > ... =A0Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what you're doing here and it's
    > a good attempt, I just think there are too many variables...
    > you might offer something in C and C++ to compare to compiled Java,
    > unless you believe that those aren't viable comparison languages for
    > some reason?


    OpenJDK Client VM (build 14.0-b08, mixed mode, sharing)
    > java Bench1 > /dev/null

    Java Elapsed 0.08
    Java Elapsed 0.079
    Java Elapsed 0.079

    ruby 1.9.2dev (2009-08-25 trunk 24642) [i686-linux]
    > ruby bench1.rb > /dev/null

    Ruby Elapsed 3.515
    Ruby Elapsed 3.352
    Ruby Elapsed 3.523

    jruby 1.3.0 (ruby 1.8.6p287) (2009-06-03 5dc2e22) (OpenJDK Client VM
    1.6.0_0) [i386-java]
    > jruby bench1.rb > /dev/null

    Ruby Elapsed 4.185
    Ruby Elapsed 3.760
    Ruby Elapsed 3.626

    ruby 1.9.2dev (2009-08-25 trunk 24642) [i686-linux]
    > ruby -rubygems bench2.rb > /dev/null

    Ruby Elapsed 0.059
    Ruby Elapsed 0.058
    Ruby Elapsed 0.060

    jruby 1.3.0 (ruby 1.8.6p287) (2009-06-03 5dc2e22) (OpenJDK Client VM
    1.6.0_0) [i386-java]
    > jruby -rubygems bench2.rb > /dev/null

    Ruby Elapsed 0.409
    Ruby Elapsed 0.410
    Ruby Elapsed 0.412


    require 'ffi-inliner'

    BAILOUT =3D 16
    MAX_ITERATIONS =3D 1000

    class Bench2
    extend Inliner

    def initialize
    puts "Rendering..."
    for y in -39..39
    for x in -39..39
    print iterate(x/40.0, y/40.0) =3D=3D 0 ? "*" : " "
    end
    print "\n"
    end
    end

    inline <<-EO
    int n;

    int iterate(double x, double y)
    {
    int i =3D 0;
    double zi =3D 0.0;
    double zr =3D 0.0;
    double zi2, zr2, temp;
    double ci =3D x;
    double cr =3D y-0.5;
    while(i < #{MAX_ITERATIONS}) {
    i++;
    temp =3D zr * zi;
    zr2 =3D zr * zr;
    zi2 =3D zi * zi;
    zr =3D zr2 - zi2 + cr;
    zi =3D temp + temp + ci;
    if(zi2 + zr2 > #{BAILOUT}) return i;
    }
    return 0;
    }
    EO
    end

    time =3D Time.now
    Bench2.new
    STDERR.puts "Ruby Elapsed %.3f" % (Time.now - time)


    In this case, the original Ruby version of the method looked so much
    like C that I don't think you lose much in readability by inlining
    (except for loss of vim's syntax highlighting).
     
    , Aug 25, 2009
    #19
  20. Marco Mastrodonato

    lith Guest

    > >> Comparison script languages for the fractal geometry, these are the
    > >> languages i tested:


    http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32q/benchmark.php?test=mandelbrot

    > OpenJDK Client VM (build 14.0-b08, mixed mode, sharing)> java Bench1 > /dev/null
    >
    > Java Elapsed 0.08
    > Java Elapsed 0.079
    > Java Elapsed 0.079


    > ruby 1.9.2dev (2009-08-25 trunk 24642) [i686-linux]> ruby -rubygems bench2.rb > /dev/null
    >
    > Ruby Elapsed 0.059
    > Ruby Elapsed 0.058
    > Ruby Elapsed 0.060


    I guess this wasn't the first run when the inline code got compiled?

    Anyway, since the runtime is so short, in the case of the java version
    you're to some extent measuring the JVM startup time.

    Another thing: if I'm not totally mistaken, a ruby float is a double
    in the Java world.
     
    lith, Aug 26, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Arash Partow

    Schifra Reed-Solomon ECC Library

    Arash Partow, Nov 6, 2006, in forum: VHDL
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    606
    Arash Partow
    Nov 6, 2006
  2. Rajive Narain
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,077
    Rajive Narain
    Sep 18, 2009
  3. Robert Feldt
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    125
    Robert Feldt
    Nov 29, 2003
  4. Diego Virasoro

    Ruby vs. Groovy: your perspective

    Diego Virasoro, Apr 13, 2009, in forum: Ruby
    Replies:
    43
    Views:
    507
    Rick DeNatale
    Jun 6, 2009
  5. Noah Cutler
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    234
    Noah Cutler
    Feb 1, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page