Re: Perl commandments

2001-01-10 Thread Mark Fowler
Thou shalt optimise for programmer time unless absolutely necessary, Thou shalt optimise for programmer time unless O(x(n)) O(y(n)) and n is a suitably large value, where programmer time is both the time for the current programming task and any future programming time that may be expended

JOB: Re: Hiring (not another one :) )

2001-01-10 Thread Mark Fowler
While hiring seems to be the order of the day, just to let you know that AL Digital are hiring at the moment .. (permies only at the moment) ... I can't believe that you didn't mention the really cool arcade machine in reception[1] in the sales pitch. I think that most Perl Mongers would be

Re: Perl commandments

2001-01-10 Thread Greg McCarroll
* Mark Fowler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Thou shalt optimise for programmer time unless absolutely necessary, Thou shalt optimise for programmer time unless O(x(n)) O(y(n)) and n is what are O(x(n)) and O(y(n)), i'm not familiar with the x and y notation -- Greg McCarroll

Re: Perl commandments

2001-01-10 Thread Mark Fowler
what are O(x(n)) and O(y(n)), i'm not familiar with the x and y notation Okay, I was making it up on the fly; - They're meant to be the functions you're implementing. Hence O(x(n)) is running time of x on the data n, and the same for y. I think the point I was trying to make about future

Re: JOB: Re: Hiring (not another one :) )

2001-01-10 Thread David Hodgkinson
Mark Fowler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: While hiring seems to be the order of the day, just to let you know that AL Digital are hiring at the moment .. (permies only at the moment) ... I can't believe that you didn't mention the really cool arcade machine in reception[1] in the sales

Re: Perl commandments

2001-01-10 Thread Piers Cawley
Greg McCarroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Mark Fowler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: what are O(x(n)) and O(y(n)), i'm not familiar with the x and y notation Okay, I was making it up on the fly; - They're meant to be the functions you're implementing. Hence O(x(n)) is running time of x

Re: Perl commandments

2001-01-10 Thread Greg McCarroll
* Mark Fowler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Err... Twice as fast is still twice as fast when it's running on a processor that's twice as fast as it would have been. I now can't remember where I read a fascinating piece on the value of more efficient algorithms as computers got faster. But it

Re: Perl commandments

2001-01-10 Thread Peter Corlett
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: ok, but it gets more interesting as take into account moores law that reduces the effectiveness of optmisation by halving the improvement of the optimization every year [...] This depends. If you're just doing an optimisation that changes one O(N)

Re: Perl commandments

2001-01-10 Thread Greg McCarroll
* Peter Corlett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: ok, but it gets more interesting as take into account moores law that reduces the effectiveness of optmisation by halving the improvement of the optimization every year [...] This depends. If you're just

Re: Perl commandments

2001-01-10 Thread David Hodgkinson
Greg McCarroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: the best way to do this, if you see something is N^2 is to figure out how you could do it with a sort and hey presto it usually can be turned into NlogN+N .. NlogN This would involve beating aforementioned programmers round the head with Programming

Re: Perl commandments

2001-01-10 Thread Piers Cawley
David Hodgkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Greg McCarroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: the best way to do this, if you see something is N^2 is to figure out how you could do it with a sort and hey presto it usually can be turned into NlogN+N .. NlogN This would involve beating

Re: JOB: Re: Hiring (not another one :) )

2001-01-10 Thread John
David Hodgkinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Mark Fowler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: While hiring seems to be the order of the day, just to let you know that AL Digital are hiring at the moment .. (permies only at the moment) ... I can't believe that you didn't mention the really

Re: JOB: Re: Hiring (not another one :) )

2001-01-10 Thread Paul Sharpe
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, John wrote: David Hodgkinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Mark Fowler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: While hiring seems to be the order of the day, just to let you know that AL Digital are hiring at the moment .. (permies only at the moment) ... I can't

Re: Manning Tk book

2001-01-10 Thread DJ Adams
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 07:47:27PM -, Dean S Wilson wrote: Was anyone on list involved in the beta reading of this one? http://www1.fatbrain.com/asp/bookinfo/bookinfo.asp?theisbn=1884777937 If so did it look promising? It was going in the right direction, but there hasn't seemed to

RE: Manning Tk book

2001-01-10 Thread dcross - David Cross
From: DJ Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 10 January 2001 14:33 On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 07:47:27PM -, Dean S Wilson wrote: Was anyone on list involved in the beta reading of this one? http://www1.fatbrain.com/asp/bookinfo/bookinfo.asp?theisbn=1884777937 If so did it look

Re: Directory to Data Structure

2001-01-10 Thread David Cantrell
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 09:16:57AM -0500, Andy Williams wrote: What I need to do is put this into a data structure like: $dirstruct{"mydir"}-{dir1}-{dir2}-["A.A","B.B"] The directory listing would be: /dir1/dir2/A.A /dir1/dir2/B.B $file =~ s/^\\//g; my @fp =

Re: Directory to Data Structure

2001-01-10 Thread Philip Newton
Andy Williams wrote: I'm using File::Find to recursively get all the files from a directory structure, then splitting each $File::Find::name into an array. What I need to do is put this into a data structure like: $dirstruct{"mydir"}-{dir1}-{dir2}-["A.A","B.B"]

Re: Directory to Data Structure

2001-01-10 Thread Philip Newton
Andy Williams wrote: eval('push @{$DIRSTRUCT'.$dir.'}, $f'); Urgle. Don't use string eval without vetting your data. Try the version I submitted a couple of minutes ago. I'm afraid it's a bit more readable, though. Cheers, Philip

Re: JOB: Re: Hiring (not another one :) )

2001-01-10 Thread David H. Adler
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 11:17:54AM +, David Cantrell wrote: /me thinks more people should demand silly toys as signing-on bonuses http://www.ericharshbarger.org/lego/desk.html -- David H. Adler - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.panix.com/~dha/ "We Americans stand on the shoulders of

Re: Perl 6

2001-01-10 Thread Simon Wistow
David Hodgkinson wrote: Or am I missing something? But you have to think about what new features you want to add when you're redesigning the internals.

Re: Perl 6

2001-01-10 Thread Nathan Torkington
David Hodgkinson writes: If we can get past Larry, I imagine we'll make really rapid progress. Is a coup out of the question? The emergency backup plan of airlifting him from California to Colorado and chaining him to the keyboard remains a backup plan. Will advise HQ when time is ripe.

Re: JOB: Re: Hiring (not another one :) )

2001-01-10 Thread David H. Adler
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 06:46:23PM +, David Cantrell wrote: On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 12:45:11PM -0500, David H. Adler wrote: On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 11:17:54AM +, David Cantrell wrote: /me thinks more people should demand silly toys as signing-on bonuses

Re: JOB: Re: Hiring (not another one :) )

2001-01-10 Thread Graham Hart
Mark Fowler wrote: While hiring seems to be the order of the day, just to let you know that AL Digital are hiring at the moment .. (permies only at the moment) ... I can't believe that you didn't mention the really cool arcade machine in reception[1] in the sales pitch. I think that

Re: JOB: Re: Hiring (not another one :) )

2001-01-10 Thread Graham Hart
Hi, John wrote: David Hodgkinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Mark Fowler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: While hiring seems to be the order of the day, just to let you know that AL Digital are hiring at the moment .. (permies only at the moment) ... I can't believe that you

Re: JOB: Re: Hiring (not another one :) )

2001-01-10 Thread Graham Hart
Hi, Piers Cawley wrote: Paul Sharpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, John wrote: David Hodgkinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Mark Fowler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: While hiring seems to be the order of the day, just to let you know that AL Digital

Re: joke or bug?

2001-01-10 Thread David H. Adler
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 11:12:06PM +, Dave Cross wrote: I just sent Randal an email and got an automated response from his "answering machine". All very clever stuff, but the subject of the email is given below: "answering machine message, most recently updated 100/11/14" What do

Re: joke or bug?

2001-01-10 Thread Dave Cross
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 08:02:01PM -0500, David H. Adler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 11:12:06PM +, Dave Cross wrote: I just sent Randal an email and got an automated response from his "answering machine". All very clever stuff, but the subject of the email is

Re: joke or bug?

2001-01-10 Thread David H. Adler
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 06:52:56AM +, Dave Cross wrote: On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 08:02:01PM -0500, David H. Adler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 11:12:06PM +, Dave Cross wrote: I just sent Randal an email and got an automated response from his "answering