2008/6/20 hadley wickham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 2008/6/20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> On 20 июн, 11:06, Wacek Kusnierczyk >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> the result may be that the more beautiful the code, the more the performance >>> sucks. >> >> Sad but true. > > If you do nothing to your code, in 18 months time its performance will > have doubled because computers will have become faster. Your code
But that doesn't seem to be true anymore (if we are talking single CPU), and it seems not to have been true for at least a few years (e.g., http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2006/EECS-2006-183.html for instance, their figure 2 in p. 6). > will not get easier to understand by itself. > No it won't. Best, R. > Hadley > > > -- > http://had.co.nz/ > ______________________________________________ > R-help@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. > -- Ramon Diaz-Uriarte Statistical Computing Team Structural Biology and Biocomputing Programme Spanish National Cancer Centre (CNIO) http://ligarto.org/rdiaz Phone: +34-91-224-6900 ext. 3019 ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
