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
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
* 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
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
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
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
* 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
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)
* 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
$file =~ s/^\\//g;
my @fp =
Andy Williams wrote:
eval('push @{$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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
25 matches
Mail list logo
