[iOS Programming]Swift Programming Language:it’s like Objective-C, without the C# MobileDevelopment - 移动开发
a*y
1 楼
来看看
b*8
2 楼
dynawind heavy duty 660 据说是瑞士表里最皮实的一款。有没有人知道些这款表的历
史和细节？
史和细节？
C*w
4 楼
更像是巧妙的拍出来的，不过真要ps难度也应该不大，只要有素材
z*n
5 楼
水平飛行最快的鳥類
wikipedia
Swifts are the most aerial of birds. Larger species are amongst the fastest
fliers in the animal kingdom, with the White-throated Needletail having been
reported flying at up to 169 km/h (105 mph).[6] Even the Common Swift can
cruise at a maximum speed of 31 metres per second (112 km/h, 70 mph). In a
single year the common swift can cover at least 200,000 km.[7]
【在 z*******n 的大作中提到】
: https://developer.apple.com/swift/
wikipedia
Swifts are the most aerial of birds. Larger species are amongst the fastest
fliers in the animal kingdom, with the White-throated Needletail having been
reported flying at up to 169 km/h (105 mph).[6] Even the Common Swift can
cruise at a maximum speed of 31 metres per second (112 km/h, 70 mph). In a
single year the common swift can cover at least 200,000 km.[7]
【在 z*******n 的大作中提到】
: https://developer.apple.com/swift/
t*e
6 楼
有个长焦，模特耐心点，应该就可以了。
z*n
7 楼
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/24101718/swift-performance-sorting-
arrays#comment37183103_24102237
tl;dr Swift without aggressive compiler optimizations at this stage is very
slow; with them it is very fast. Keep it in mind.
Here is an in-place quicksort in Swift:
func quicksort_swift(inout a:CInt[], start:Int, end:Int) {
if (end - start < 2){
return
}
var p = a[start + (end - start)/2]
var l = start
var r = end - 1
while (l <= r){
if (a[l] < p){
l += 1
continue
}
if (a[r] > p){
r -= 1
continue
}
var t = a[l]
a[l] = a[r]
a[r] = t
l += 1
r -= 1
}
quicksort_swift(&a, start, r + 1)
quicksort_swift(&a, r + 1, end)
}
And the same in C:
void quicksort_c(int *a, int n) {
if (n < 2)
return;
int p = a[n / 2];
int *l = a;
int *r = a + n - 1;
while (l <= r) {
if (*l < p) {
l++;
continue;
}
if (*r > p) {
r--;
continue;
}
int t = *l;
*l++ = *r;
*r-- = t;
}
quicksort_c(a, r - a + 1);
quicksort_c(l, a + n - l);
}
Both work:
var a_swift:CInt[] = [0,5,2,8,1234,-1,2]
var a_c:CInt[] = [0,5,2,8,1234,-1,2]
quicksort_swift(&a_swift, 0, a_swift.count)
quicksort_c(&a_c, CInt(a_c.count))
// [-1, 0, 2, 2, 5, 8, 1234]
// [-1, 0, 2, 2, 5, 8, 1234]
Both are called in the same program as written.
var x_swift = CInt[](count: n, repeatedValue: 0)
var x_c = CInt[](count: n, repeatedValue: 0)
for var i = 0; i < n; ++i {
x_swift[i] = CInt(random())
x_c[i] = CInt(random())
}
let swift_start:UInt64 = mach_absolute_time();
quicksort_swift(&x_swift, 0, x_swift.count)
let swift_stop:UInt64 = mach_absolute_time();
let c_start:UInt64 = mach_absolute_time();
quicksort_c(&x_c, CInt(x_c.count))
let c_stop:UInt64 = mach_absolute_time();
Here is a summary of the compiler's optimazation levels:
[-Onone] no optimizations, the default for debug.
[-O] perform optimizations, the default for release.
[-Ofast] perform optimizations and disable runtime overflow checks and
runtime type checks.
Time in seconds with [-Onone] for n=10_000:
Swift: 0.895296452
C: 0.001223848
Here is Swift's builtin sort() for n=10_000:
Swift_builtin: 0.77865783
Here is [-O] for n=10_000:
Swift: 0.045478346
C: 0.000784666
Swift_builtin: 0.032513488
As you can see, Swift's performance improved by a factor of 20.
As per mweathers' answer, setting [-Ofast] makes the real difference,
resulting in these times for n=10_000:
Swift: 0.000706745
C: 0.000742374
Swift_builtin: 0.000603576
And for n=1_000_000:
Swift: 0.107111846
C: 0.114957179
Swift_sort: 0.092688548
For comparison, this is with [-Onone] for n=1_000_000:
Swift: 142.659763258
C: 0.162065333
Swift_sort: 114.095478272
So Swift with no optimizations was almost 1000x slower than C in this
benchmark, at this stage in its development. On the other hand with both
compilers set to [-Ofast] Swift actually performed at least as well if not
slightly better than C.
It has been pointed out that [-Ofast] changes the semantics of the language,
making it potentially unsafe. This is what Apple states in the Xcode 5.0
release notes:
A new optimization level -Ofast, available in LLVM, enables aggressive
optimizations. -Ofast relaxes some conservative restrictions, mostly for
floating-point operations, that are safe for most code. It can yield
significant high-performance wins from the compiler.
They all but advocate it. Whether that's wise or not I couldn't say, but
from what I can tell it seems reasonable enough to use [-Ofast] in a release
if you're not doing high-precision floating point arithmetic and you're
confident no integer or array overflows are possible in your program. If you
do need high performance and overflow checks / precise arithmetic then
choose another language for now.
【在 z*******n 的大作中提到】
: https://developer.apple.com/swift/
arrays#comment37183103_24102237
tl;dr Swift without aggressive compiler optimizations at this stage is very
slow; with them it is very fast. Keep it in mind.
Here is an in-place quicksort in Swift:
func quicksort_swift(inout a:CInt[], start:Int, end:Int) {
if (end - start < 2){
return
}
var p = a[start + (end - start)/2]
var l = start
var r = end - 1
while (l <= r){
if (a[l] < p){
l += 1
continue
}
if (a[r] > p){
r -= 1
continue
}
var t = a[l]
a[l] = a[r]
a[r] = t
l += 1
r -= 1
}
quicksort_swift(&a, start, r + 1)
quicksort_swift(&a, r + 1, end)
}
And the same in C:
void quicksort_c(int *a, int n) {
if (n < 2)
return;
int p = a[n / 2];
int *l = a;
int *r = a + n - 1;
while (l <= r) {
if (*l < p) {
l++;
continue;
}
if (*r > p) {
r--;
continue;
}
int t = *l;
*l++ = *r;
*r-- = t;
}
quicksort_c(a, r - a + 1);
quicksort_c(l, a + n - l);
}
Both work:
var a_swift:CInt[] = [0,5,2,8,1234,-1,2]
var a_c:CInt[] = [0,5,2,8,1234,-1,2]
quicksort_swift(&a_swift, 0, a_swift.count)
quicksort_c(&a_c, CInt(a_c.count))
// [-1, 0, 2, 2, 5, 8, 1234]
// [-1, 0, 2, 2, 5, 8, 1234]
Both are called in the same program as written.
var x_swift = CInt[](count: n, repeatedValue: 0)
var x_c = CInt[](count: n, repeatedValue: 0)
for var i = 0; i < n; ++i {
x_swift[i] = CInt(random())
x_c[i] = CInt(random())
}
let swift_start:UInt64 = mach_absolute_time();
quicksort_swift(&x_swift, 0, x_swift.count)
let swift_stop:UInt64 = mach_absolute_time();
let c_start:UInt64 = mach_absolute_time();
quicksort_c(&x_c, CInt(x_c.count))
let c_stop:UInt64 = mach_absolute_time();
Here is a summary of the compiler's optimazation levels:
[-Onone] no optimizations, the default for debug.
[-O] perform optimizations, the default for release.
[-Ofast] perform optimizations and disable runtime overflow checks and
runtime type checks.
Time in seconds with [-Onone] for n=10_000:
Swift: 0.895296452
C: 0.001223848
Here is Swift's builtin sort() for n=10_000:
Swift_builtin: 0.77865783
Here is [-O] for n=10_000:
Swift: 0.045478346
C: 0.000784666
Swift_builtin: 0.032513488
As you can see, Swift's performance improved by a factor of 20.
As per mweathers' answer, setting [-Ofast] makes the real difference,
resulting in these times for n=10_000:
Swift: 0.000706745
C: 0.000742374
Swift_builtin: 0.000603576
And for n=1_000_000:
Swift: 0.107111846
C: 0.114957179
Swift_sort: 0.092688548
For comparison, this is with [-Onone] for n=1_000_000:
Swift: 142.659763258
C: 0.162065333
Swift_sort: 114.095478272
So Swift with no optimizations was almost 1000x slower than C in this
benchmark, at this stage in its development. On the other hand with both
compilers set to [-Ofast] Swift actually performed at least as well if not
slightly better than C.
It has been pointed out that [-Ofast] changes the semantics of the language,
making it potentially unsafe. This is what Apple states in the Xcode 5.0
release notes:
A new optimization level -Ofast, available in LLVM, enables aggressive
optimizations. -Ofast relaxes some conservative restrictions, mostly for
floating-point operations, that are safe for most code. It can yield
significant high-performance wins from the compiler.
They all but advocate it. Whether that's wise or not I couldn't say, but
from what I can tell it seems reasonable enough to use [-Ofast] in a release
if you're not doing high-precision floating point arithmetic and you're
confident no integer or array overflows are possible in your program. If you
do need high performance and overflow checks / precise arithmetic then
choose another language for now.
【在 z*******n 的大作中提到】
: https://developer.apple.com/swift/
l*s
8 楼
can't agree more
【在 t***e 的大作中提到】
: 有个长焦，模特耐心点，应该就可以了。
【在 t***e 的大作中提到】
: 有个长焦，模特耐心点，应该就可以了。
相关阅读
Google I/O 2014 App Source Code Now Availableadd app purchases to their mobile billApple and Samsung are talking settlement, reports Korea TimesResearch project Cider brings iOS apps to Android devices看了WWDC 2014好多感想黄委员的C++11 style[iOS Marketing]Apple to make App Store discovery easier with new ways to find appsIntroduction to "The Java Language Specification, Java SE 8 EditionTSMC Starts Shipping Microprocessors to Applemodern objectivec手机，Smartwatch，SmartGlass(VR)应该是三位一体的Oracle's surprise win in Java API case could make it harder for developers如何外包你的project (转载)Promote 我的一个game (转载)Apple prohibits masturbation game from App StoreEight out of the top 10 universities now use Python to introduce programming, a researcher has found苹果的App Store的推荐Court rules collecting cellphone location without a warrant violates the Fourth AmendmentGoogle Patents A Laptop With A Built-In SmartphoneiOS Developer Position Available (转载)