We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Hi r-lyeh,
I would like to know whether is possible to eval ZetScript in your performance list test.
Currently ZetScript links dinamically by default but I attached the static version below,
zetscript-1.3.0_static.zip
And the equivalent Fibonacci script for ZetScript is typed below,
function fibR(n) { if (n < 2) { return n; } return fibR(n-2)+fibR(n-1); } print("fib: " + (fibR(34)) );
Cheers,
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi @r-lyeh-archived and happy new year,
I have recently updated ZetScript at 2.0.0. The speed it has increased ~2.5 times.
I attach the new release here,
zetscript-2.0.0.tar.gz
Howewer, with all the changes made, fib.zs script it has to change into the following,
fib.zs
function fibR(n) { if (n < 2) { return n; } return fibR(n-2)+fibR(n-1); } Console::outln("fib: {0}", fibR(34) );
By default cmake project it compiles ZetScript statically so I think it fits the requirements.
Sorry, something went wrong.
No branches or pull requests
Hi r-lyeh,
I would like to know whether is possible to eval ZetScript in your performance list test.
Currently ZetScript links dinamically by default but I attached the static version below,
zetscript-1.3.0_static.zip
And the equivalent Fibonacci script for ZetScript is typed below,
Cheers,
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: