in reply to translating code and creating matrix

The most likely reason for the discrepancy is that Darwin appears (from the scant information I can find about it) to generate C code that uses float where Perl uses double.

Hence, I believe that the Perl code is producing more accurate results, but they will not reproduce the results from the Darwin code.

Probably the easiest way to confirm this would be to intercept the C code generated by the Darwin code and inspect it. Perhaps even try switching all floats to doubles and see if the results then produced match what perl is producing.

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: translating code and creating matrix
by spx2 (Deacon) on Aug 17, 2013 at 16:40 UTC

    Apparently Darwin is closed source. See my other post. So.. slim chances of getting the code.

[reply]
      Apparently Darwin is closed source. See my other post. So.. slim chances of getting the code.

      I know, but I linked an example of the C produced by Darwin (it converts Darwin code into C which is then compiled in the normal way), and it shows that it uses floats rather than doubles for many variables -- including mutation rate -- which probably explains the difference between its results and those produced with Perl.

      With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom