### Re: Perl commandments

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 :) )

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

* 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

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 :) )

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

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

* 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

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

* 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

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

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 :) )

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 :) )

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

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

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

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

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

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 :) )

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

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

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 :) )

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 :) )

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 :) )

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 :) )

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?

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?

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?

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