curious what lazyness
you used to go from 60 to 1.6? I always thought lazyness was automatic and
seq made strictness possible.
thanks
Vishnu
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 7:41 AM, Daniel Fischer daniel.is.fisc...@web.dewrote:
Am Samstag 28 November 2009 02:04:31 schrieb Daniel Fischer:
Make it
distance
Ive just started learning haskell pretty recently and Ive been trying to
solve some online contest problems as part of this exercise. However, Ive
been having almost no success. For various reasons my answers almost always
are too slow. I recently stumbled across this link which was quite useful
wow I just woke up to see this :). Im impressed at the speed of the
response, thanks Daniel
Bad news first.
a) According to codechef, you must also consider digits.
you're right, I totally missed this. Thanks :)
b) Your distance function is wrong.
With idx i j = (i+1)*(j+1) - 1, you
Hi Daniel
Wow that's fantastic. Could you explain those further optimisations a bit
more please? Especially the whole more lazyness thing.
Timings here:
Your last ByteString code: 128s
That with corrected index calculation: 172s
Correct indices and distance orig new = f m n instead of memf m
Hi Bulat
hmm ok I understand the issue of compiler maturity. But I thought
lazyness was meant to be a bonus? Or is it that if you really try to squeeze
performance it becomes more of a hindrance?
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 1:47 AM, Bulat Ziganshin
bulat.zigans...@gmail.comwrote:
Hello Don,
