On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:45:41 +0100 isabella parakiss <izaber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/26/16, Mattias Andrée <maand...@kth.se> wrote: > > Performance is not really something suckless > > concerns itself about. They favour solutions > > that are simpler to implement and maintain > > but asymptotically slower. But in the case of > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > this is awful. > > i don't understand this whole approach to computing. > why would you rather write *dumb*, *slow* code that "gets > the job done", instead of actually trying to make it > decent? programming trivial utilities isn't fun. why are > you even writing code? > > > tommath, I don't think it is asymptotically > > slower, at least not much, it is just makes > > a hugh about of memory allocations. Which is > > a very expensive operation. > > > > It should however be noted, that factor(1) is > > not intended to factorise huge numbers or brake > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > may as well just restrict it to uint64_t. or uint32_t. > or char. > > > RSA numbers, in fact GNU factor will reject to > > difficult numbers. It should just be able to > > factor reasonably large numbers. I think 50 times > > slower than GNU factor is acceptable, but 1000 > ^^^^^^^^^^ > no it's not and you should be ashamed of yourself as a > computer scientist. Well I'm not done yet, it will be faster. But for factoring a few(!) small(!) numbers that could take 0.001 seconds, 0.05 seconds is acceptable and barely noticable. > > > times slower is not. Keep in mind though, that > > the difference depends widely on the number that > > is being factorised. > > > > > --- > xoxo iza >
pgpDEAGKL0miz.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
