== To Do == * -turbo * using Stopwatch * profilers * benchmarks * avoid when possible: slicing, dynamic, exceptions, i/o * don't optimize if you don't need to, root of all evil == Example == From the discussion thread in the forums ([http://cobra-language.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=700 Why so slow?]), some modified versions of the code are available for comparison: * With Python 3.6.0, running against a slightly modified version (for tracking time) with 50,000 loops yielded a run-time of 0.66819638 seconds. * An initial port (which included substantial refactoring to identify the cause of the different final results) with 50,000 loops yielded a run-time of 98.284 seconds * After numerous attempts at speed improvement, the cobra code was sped up to a run-time of 0.057 seconds (or 11x faster than python, or 1,724x faster than original implementation. Some of the strategies attempting are listed below and whether they yielded much of a performance change: * Made sure the the for loop variables had explicit types: yielded 33x improvement * Used float instead of decimal: yielded 7x improvement * Using multiplication instead of division: yielded 1.2x improvement * Converted Math.pow to Math.sqrt for square roots: yielded 1.05x improvement * Moved variable declarations into function-level scope: NO IMPROVEMENT * Replaced properties with public fields: 1.6x improvement == Discussions == Here are some select discussions on performance: * [http://cobra-language.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=700 Why so slow?] 2010-12 * [http://cobra-language.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=692 Cobra vs Python - speed] 2010-11