#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>

int factorCount (long n)
{
    double square = sqrt (n);
    int isquare = (int) square+1;
    long candidate = 2;
    int count = 1;
    while(candidate <= isquare && candidate <= n){
        int c = 1;
        while (n % candidate == 0) {
           c++;
           n /= candidate;
        }
        count *= c;
        candidate++;
    }
    return count;
}

int main ()
{
    long triangle = 1;
    int index = 1;
    while (factorCount (triangle) < 1001)
    {
        index ++;
        triangle += index;
    }
    printf ("%ld\n", triangle);
}

gcc -lm -Ofast euler.c

时间。/ a.o ut

2.79s user 0.00s system 99% CPU 2.794 total

在Python优化方面，除了使用PyPy(对代码进行零更改即可获得令人印象深刻的加速)之外，还可以使用PyPy的翻译工具链编译与rpython兼容的版本，或者使用Cython构建扩展模块，在我的测试中，这两种工具都比C版本快，而Cython模块的速度几乎是C版本的两倍。作为参考，我包括C和PyPy基准测试结果:

C(编译gcc -O3 -lm)

% time ./euler12-c 
842161320

./euler12-c  11.95s 
 user 0.00s 
 system 99% 
 cpu 11.959 total

PyPy 1.5

% time pypy euler12.py
842161320
pypy euler12.py  
16.44s user 
0.01s system 
99% cpu 16.449 total

RPython(使用最新的PyPy修订版，c2f583445aee)

% time ./euler12-rpython-c
842161320
./euler12-rpy-c  
10.54s user 0.00s 
system 99% 
cpu 10.540 total

崇拜0.15

% time python euler12-cython.py
842161320
python euler12-cython.py  
6.27s user 0.00s 
system 99% 
cpu 6.274 total

RPython版本有几个关键的变化。要转换成一个独立的程序，您需要定义目标，在本例中是主函数。它被期望接受sys。Argv作为它唯一的参数，并且需要返回一个int。你可以使用translate.py， % translate.py euler12-rpython.py来翻译它，它可以翻译成C语言并为你编译它。

# euler12-rpython.py

import math, sys

def factorCount(n):
    square = math.sqrt(n)
    isquare = int(square)
    count = -1 if isquare == square else 0
    for candidate in xrange(1, isquare + 1):
        if not n % candidate: count += 2
    return count

def main(argv):
    triangle = 1
    index = 1
    while factorCount(triangle) < 1001:
        index += 1
        triangle += index
    print triangle
    return 0

if __name__ == '__main__':
    main(sys.argv)

def target(*args):
    return main, None

Cython版本被重写为扩展模块_euler12。我从一个普通的python文件中导入并调用它。_euler12。Pyx本质上与您的版本相同，只是有一些额外的静态类型声明。setup.py有一个正常的样板来构建扩展，使用python setup.py build_ext——inplace。

# _euler12.pyx
from libc.math cimport sqrt

cdef int factorCount(int n):
    cdef int candidate, isquare, count
    cdef double square
    square = sqrt(n)
    isquare = int(square)
    count = -1 if isquare == square else 0
    for candidate in range(1, isquare + 1):
        if not n % candidate: count += 2
    return count

cpdef main():
    cdef int triangle = 1, index = 1
    while factorCount(triangle) < 1001:
        index += 1
        triangle += index
    print triangle

# euler12-cython.py
import _euler12
_euler12.main()

# setup.py
from distutils.core import setup
from distutils.extension import Extension
from Cython.Distutils import build_ext

ext_modules = [Extension("_euler12", ["_euler12.pyx"])]

setup(
  name = 'Euler12-Cython',
  cmdclass = {'build_ext': build_ext},
  ext_modules = ext_modules
)

老实说，我对RPython或Cython都没有什么经验，对结果感到惊喜。如果您正在使用CPython，那么在Cython扩展模块中编写cpu密集型代码似乎是优化程序的一种非常简单的方法。

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!

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。

c++ 11， < 20ms for me -在这里运行它

我理解您想要一些技巧来帮助提高您的语言特定知识，但由于这里已经很好地介绍了这一点，我想我应该为那些可能看过您的问题的mathematica注释等并想知道为什么这段代码如此之慢的人添加一些上下文。

这个答案主要是为了提供上下文，希望能够帮助人们更容易地评估您的问题/其他答案中的代码。

这段代码只使用了一些(丑陋的)优化，与所使用的语言无关，基于:

每个三角数的形式都是n(n+1)/2 N和N +1是互质 除数的数量是一个乘法函数

#include <iostream>
#include <cmath>
#include <tuple>
#include <chrono>

using namespace std;

// Calculates the divisors of an integer by determining its prime factorisation.

int get_divisors(long long n)
{
    int divisors_count = 1;

    for(long long i = 2;
        i <= sqrt(n);
        /* empty */)
    {
        int divisions = 0;
        while(n % i == 0)
        {
            n /= i;
            divisions++;
        }

        divisors_count *= (divisions + 1);

        //here, we try to iterate more efficiently by skipping
        //obvious non-primes like 4, 6, etc
        if(i == 2)
            i++;
        else
            i += 2;
    }

    if(n != 1) //n is a prime
        return divisors_count * 2;
    else
        return divisors_count;
}

long long euler12()
{
    //n and n + 1
    long long n, n_p_1;

    n = 1; n_p_1 = 2;

    // divisors_x will store either the divisors of x or x/2
    // (the later iff x is divisible by two)
    long long divisors_n = 1;
    long long divisors_n_p_1 = 2;

    for(;;)
    {
        /* This loop has been unwound, so two iterations are completed at a time
         * n and n + 1 have no prime factors in common and therefore we can
         * calculate their divisors separately
         */

        long long total_divisors;                 //the divisors of the triangle number
                                                  // n(n+1)/2

        //the first (unwound) iteration

        divisors_n_p_1 = get_divisors(n_p_1 / 2); //here n+1 is even and we

        total_divisors =
                  divisors_n
                * divisors_n_p_1;

        if(total_divisors > 1000)
            break;

        //move n and n+1 forward
        n = n_p_1;
        n_p_1 = n + 1;

        //fix the divisors
        divisors_n = divisors_n_p_1;
        divisors_n_p_1 = get_divisors(n_p_1);   //n_p_1 is now odd!

        //now the second (unwound) iteration

        total_divisors =
                  divisors_n
                * divisors_n_p_1;

        if(total_divisors > 1000)
            break;

        //move n and n+1 forward
        n = n_p_1;
        n_p_1 = n + 1;

        //fix the divisors
        divisors_n = divisors_n_p_1;
        divisors_n_p_1 = get_divisors(n_p_1 / 2);   //n_p_1 is now even!
    }

    return (n * n_p_1) / 2;
}

int main()
{
    for(int i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
    {
        using namespace std::chrono;
        auto start = high_resolution_clock::now();
        auto result = euler12();
        auto end = high_resolution_clock::now();

        double time_elapsed = duration_cast<milliseconds>(end - start).count();

        cout << result << " " << time_elapsed << '\n';
    }
    return 0;
}

我的台式机平均花费19毫秒，笔记本电脑平均花费80毫秒，这与我在这里看到的大多数其他代码相差甚远。毫无疑问，还有许多优化方法可用。

通过使用Haskell包中的一些函数，可以大大加快Haskell实现的速度。 在这种情况下，我使用了质数，它只是安装了'cabal安装质数';)

import Data.Numbers.Primes
import Data.List

triangleNumbers = scanl1 (+) [1..]
nDivisors n = product $ map ((+1) . length) (group (primeFactors n))
answer = head $ filter ((> 500) . nDivisors) triangleNumbers

main :: IO ()
main = putStrLn $ "First triangle number to have over 500 divisors: " ++ (show answer)

计时:

您的原始程序:

PS> measure-command { bin\012_slow.exe }

TotalSeconds      : 16.3807409
TotalMilliseconds : 16380.7409

改进的实现

PS> measure-command { bin\012.exe }

TotalSeconds      : 0.0383436
TotalMilliseconds : 38.3436

正如你所看到的，在同一台机器上，这台机器运行38毫秒，而你的机器运行16秒:)

编译命令:

ghc -O2 012.hs -o bin\012.exe
ghc -O2 012_slow.hs -o bin\012_slow.exe