看看您的Erlang实现。计时包括启动整个虚拟机、运行程序和停止虚拟机。我很确定设置和停止erlang vm需要一些时间。

If the timing was done within the erlang virtual machine itself, results would be different as in that case we would have the actual time for only the program in question. Otherwise, i believe that the total time taken by the process of starting and loading of the Erlang Vm plus that of halting it (as you put it in your program) are all included in the total time which the method you are using to time the program is outputting. Consider using the erlang timing itself which we use when we want to time our programs within the virtual machine itself timer:tc/1 or timer:tc/2 or timer:tc/3. In this way, the results from erlang will exclude the time taken to start and stop/kill/halt the virtual machine. That is my reasoning there, think about it, and then try your bench mark again.

实际上，我建议我们尝试在这些语言的运行时内为程序计时(对于具有运行时的语言)，以便获得精确的值。例如，C不像Erlang、Python和Haskell那样有启动和关闭运行时系统的开销(98%确定-我可以纠正)。因此(基于这个推理)我总结说，这个基准测试对于运行在运行时系统之上的语言来说不够精确/公平。让我们用这些更改再做一次。

编辑:此外，即使所有的语言都有运行时系统，启动和停止它们的开销也会有所不同。因此，我建议我们从运行时系统内部计时(对于应用此方法的语言)。众所周知，Erlang VM在启动时有相当大的开销!

尝试:

package main

import "fmt"
import "math"

func main() {
    var n, m, c int
    for i := 1; ; i++ {
        n, m, c = i * (i + 1) / 2, int(math.Sqrt(float64(n))), 0
        for f := 1; f < m; f++ {
            if n % f == 0 { c++ }
    }
    c *= 2
    if m * m == n { c ++ }
    if c > 1001 {
        fmt.Println(n)
        break
        }
    }
}

我得到:

原始版本:9.1690 100% Go: 8.2520 111%

但使用:

package main

import (
    "math"
    "fmt"
 )

// Sieve of Eratosthenes
func PrimesBelow(limit int) []int {
    switch {
        case limit < 2:
            return []int{}
        case limit == 2:
            return []int{2}
    }
    sievebound := (limit - 1) / 2
    sieve := make([]bool, sievebound+1)
    crosslimit := int(math.Sqrt(float64(limit))-1) / 2
    for i := 1; i <= crosslimit; i++ {
        if !sieve[i] {
            for j := 2 * i * (i + 1); j <= sievebound; j += 2*i + 1 {
                sieve[j] = true
            }
        }
    }
    plimit := int(1.3*float64(limit)) / int(math.Log(float64(limit)))
    primes := make([]int, plimit)
    p := 1
    primes[0] = 2
    for i := 1; i <= sievebound; i++ {
        if !sieve[i] {
            primes[p] = 2*i + 1
            p++
            if p >= plimit {
                break
            }
        }
    }
    last := len(primes) - 1
    for i := last; i > 0; i-- {
        if primes[i] != 0 {
            break
        }
        last = i
    }
    return primes[0:last]
}



func main() {
    fmt.Println(p12())
}
// Requires PrimesBelow from utils.go
func p12() int {
    n, dn, cnt := 3, 2, 0
    primearray := PrimesBelow(1000000)
    for cnt <= 1001 {
        n++
        n1 := n
        if n1%2 == 0 {
            n1 /= 2
        }
        dn1 := 1
        for i := 0; i < len(primearray); i++ {
            if primearray[i]*primearray[i] > n1 {
                dn1 *= 2
                break
            }
            exponent := 1
            for n1%primearray[i] == 0 {
                exponent++
                n1 /= primearray[i]
            }
            if exponent > 1 {
                dn1 *= exponent
            }
            if n1 == 1 {
                break
            }
        }
        cnt = dn * dn1
        dn = dn1
    }
    return n * (n - 1) / 2
}

我得到:

原始版本:9.1690 100% Thaumkid的c版本:0.1060 8650% 首发版本:8.2520 111% 第二围棋版本:0.0230 39865%

我还尝试了Python3.6和pypy3.3-5.5-alpha:

原版本:8.629 100% Thaumkid的c版本:0.109 7916% python: 54.795 16% Pypy3.3-5.5-alpha: 13.291 65%

然后用下面的代码我得到:

原版本:8.629 100% Thaumkid的c版本:0.109 8650% Python3.6: 1.489 580% Pypy3.3-5.5-alpha: 0.582 1483%

def D(N):
    if N == 1: return 1
    sqrtN = int(N ** 0.5)
    nf = 1
    for d in range(2, sqrtN + 1):
        if N % d == 0:
            nf = nf + 1
    return 2 * nf - (1 if sqrtN**2 == N else 0)

L = 1000
Dt, n = 0, 0

while Dt <= L:
    t = n * (n + 1) // 2
    Dt = D(n/2)*D(n+1) if n%2 == 0 else D(n)*D((n+1)/2)
    n = n + 1

print (t)

在x86_64 Core2 Duo (2.5GHz)机器上使用GHC 7.0.3, gcc 4.4.6, Linux 2.6.29，对Haskell使用GHC -O2 - flvm - force-recomp编译，对C使用gcc -O3 -lm编译。

Your C routine runs in 8.4 seconds (faster than your run probably because of -O3) The Haskell solution runs in 36 seconds (due to the -O2 flag) Your factorCount' code isn't explicitly typed and defaulting to Integer (thanks to Daniel for correcting my misdiagnosis here!). Giving an explicit type signature (which is standard practice anyway) using Int and the time changes to 11.1 seconds in factorCount' you have needlessly called fromIntegral. A fix results in no change though (the compiler is smart, lucky for you). You used mod where rem is faster and sufficient. This changes the time to 8.5 seconds. factorCount' is constantly applying two extra arguments that never change (number, sqrt). A worker/wrapper transformation gives us:

 $ time ./so
 842161320  

 real    0m7.954s  
 user    0m7.944s  
 sys     0m0.004s  

没错，7.95秒。始终比C方案快半秒。没有- flvm标志，我仍然得到8.182秒，所以NCG后端在这种情况下也做得很好。

结论:Haskell非常棒。

生成的代码

factorCount number = factorCount' number isquare 1 0 - (fromEnum $ square == fromIntegral isquare)
    where square = sqrt $ fromIntegral number
          isquare = floor square

factorCount' :: Int -> Int -> Int -> Int -> Int
factorCount' number sqrt candidate0 count0 = go candidate0 count0
  where
  go candidate count
    | candidate > sqrt = count
    | number `rem` candidate == 0 = go (candidate + 1) (count + 2)
    | otherwise = go (candidate + 1) count

nextTriangle index triangle
    | factorCount triangle > 1000 = triangle
    | otherwise = nextTriangle (index + 1) (triangle + index + 1)

main = print $ nextTriangle 1 1

编辑:现在我们已经探讨了这个问题，让我们来解决问题

问题1:erlang、python和haskell是否会因为使用 任意长度的整数，只要值更小 比MAXINT ?

在Haskell中，使用Integer比Int慢，但慢多少取决于执行的计算。幸运的是(对于64位机器)Int就足够了。出于可移植性的考虑，你可能应该重写我的代码，使用Int64或Word64 (C不是唯一的语言长)。

问题2:为什么haskell这么慢?有编译器标志吗 关闭刹车还是我的实现?(后者相当 就像haskell对我来说是一本有七个印章的书一样。) 问题3:你能给我一些建议吗 实现而不改变我确定因子的方式? 以任何方式优化:更好、更快、更“原生”的语言。

这就是我上面所回答的。答案是

0)通过-O2进行优化 1)尽可能使用快速(特别是不可装箱的)类型 2) rem not mod(一个经常被遗忘的优化)和 3)工人/包装器转换(可能是最常见的优化)。

问题4:我的功能实现是否允许LCO，因此 避免添加不必要的帧到调用堆栈?

是的，这不是问题所在。干得好，很高兴你考虑到这一点。

问题1:Erlang、Python和Haskell是否会因为使用 任意长度的整数，只要值更小 比MAXINT ?

对于Erlang，第一个问题的答案是否定的。最后一个问题可以通过适当地使用Erlang来回答，如下所示:

http://bredsaal.dk/learning-erlang-using-projecteuler-net

由于它比您最初的C示例要快，我猜它会有很多问题，因为其他人已经详细讨论过了。

这个Erlang模块在一个便宜的上网本上执行大约5秒…它使用erlang中的网络线程模型，并演示了如何利用事件模型。它可以分布在许多节点上。而且速度很快。不是我的代码。

-module(p12dist).  
-author("Jannich Brendle, jannich@bredsaal.dk, http://blog.bredsaal.dk").  
-compile(export_all).

server() ->  
  server(1).

server(Number) ->  
  receive {getwork, Worker_PID} -> Worker_PID ! {work,Number,Number+100},  
  server(Number+101);  
  {result,T} -> io:format("The result is: \~w.\~n", [T]);  
  _ -> server(Number)  
  end.

worker(Server_PID) ->  
  Server_PID ! {getwork, self()},  
  receive {work,Start,End} -> solve(Start,End,Server_PID)  
  end,  
  worker(Server_PID).

start() ->  
  Server_PID = spawn(p12dist, server, []),  
  spawn(p12dist, worker, [Server_PID]),  
  spawn(p12dist, worker, [Server_PID]),  
  spawn(p12dist, worker, [Server_PID]),  
  spawn(p12dist, worker, [Server_PID]).

solve(N,End,_) when N =:= End -> no_solution;

solve(N,End,Server_PID) ->  
  T=round(N*(N+1)/2),
  case (divisor(T,round(math:sqrt(T))) > 500) of  
    true ->  
      Server_PID ! {result,T};  
    false ->  
      solve(N+1,End,Server_PID)  
  end.

divisors(N) ->  
  divisor(N,round(math:sqrt(N))).

divisor(_,0) -> 1;  
divisor(N,I) ->  
  case (N rem I) =:= 0 of  
  true ->  
    2+divisor(N,I-1);  
  false ->  
    divisor(N,I-1)  
  end.

下面的测试发生在Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU N270 @ 1.60GHz上

~$ time erl -noshell -s p12dist start

The result is: 76576500.

^C

BREAK: (a)bort (c)ontinue (p)roc info (i)nfo (l)oaded
       (v)ersion (k)ill (D)b-tables (d)istribution
a

real    0m5.510s
user    0m5.836s
sys 0m0.152s

看看您的Erlang实现。计时包括启动整个虚拟机、运行程序和停止虚拟机。我很确定设置和停止erlang vm需要一些时间。

If the timing was done within the erlang virtual machine itself, results would be different as in that case we would have the actual time for only the program in question. Otherwise, i believe that the total time taken by the process of starting and loading of the Erlang Vm plus that of halting it (as you put it in your program) are all included in the total time which the method you are using to time the program is outputting. Consider using the erlang timing itself which we use when we want to time our programs within the virtual machine itself timer:tc/1 or timer:tc/2 or timer:tc/3. In this way, the results from erlang will exclude the time taken to start and stop/kill/halt the virtual machine. That is my reasoning there, think about it, and then try your bench mark again.

实际上，我建议我们尝试在这些语言的运行时内为程序计时(对于具有运行时的语言)，以便获得精确的值。例如，C不像Erlang、Python和Haskell那样有启动和关闭运行时系统的开销(98%确定-我可以纠正)。因此(基于这个推理)我总结说，这个基准测试对于运行在运行时系统之上的语言来说不够精确/公平。让我们用这些更改再做一次。

编辑:此外，即使所有的语言都有运行时系统，启动和停止它们的开销也会有所不同。因此，我建议我们从运行时系统内部计时(对于应用此方法的语言)。众所周知，Erlang VM在启动时有相当大的开销!

使用Haskell，您真的不需要显式地考虑递归。

factorCount number = foldr factorCount' 0 [1..isquare] -
                     (fromEnum $ square == fromIntegral isquare)
    where
      square = sqrt $ fromIntegral number
      isquare = floor square
      factorCount' candidate
        | number `rem` candidate == 0 = (2 +)
        | otherwise = id

triangles :: [Int]
triangles = scanl1 (+) [1,2..]

main = print . head $ dropWhile ((< 1001) . factorCount) triangles

在上面的代码中，我用普通的列表操作替换了@Thomas回答中的显式递归。代码仍然做着完全相同的事情，而不需要我们担心尾部递归。它运行(~ 7.49秒)比@Thomas回答的版本(~ 7.04秒)在我的机器上运行GHC 7.6.2，而来自@Raedwulf的C版本运行~ 3.15秒。GHC似乎在过去一年中有所改善。

PS:我知道这是一个老问题，我从谷歌搜索中偶然发现了它(我忘了我在搜索什么了，现在…)只是想评论一下关于LCO的问题，并表达我对Haskell的总体感受。我想对上面的答案进行注释，但是注释不允许代码块。