On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, you wrote:
> push @ARGV, '/usr/dict/words';
which reminds me .. is there a /usr/dict/words with correct spellings for
english out there somwhere??? ...
--
Robin Szemeti
The box said "requires windows 95 or better"
So I installed Linux!
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 12:50:08PM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
> David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Also index. These two snippets are equivalent:
> > if($foo=~/foo/) { ... }
> > if(index($foo, 'foo')!=-1) { ... }
> > I always want to do just plain if(index(...)) though.
>
> ISTR
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Mark Rogaski wrote:
>The danger of relying on Moore's law to overcome computational
>intractablity is that we fail to account for the fact that the inputs are
>increasing at an accelerated rate, too. I'm not sure if it is fair to say
>that average datasets increase exponenti
An entity claiming to be Greg McCarroll ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
:
: 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 of course then compares to programmers
:
I'm
An entity claiming to be Mark Fowler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
:
: Maybe that's not quite as snappy as the Brocard's. Hmm. It would be
: easier if I could type omegas and stuff.
:
Unless there is some reason you need the tight bound, big-O is fine.
Mark
--
Mark Rogaski |
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 beat
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 Programmi
* 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 yo
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)
a
* 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.
> 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 was worth
> reading. It was by that guy.
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
* 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 on the data n,
> and the same for y.
>
> I
> 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 prog
* 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
> 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 mai
Piers Cawley sent the following bits through the ether:
> This time. The discussion has been back and forth on various lists,
> usually with benchmarks.
Thou shalt optimise for programmer time unless absolutely necessary,
when thou shalt Benchmark and quoth both the benchmark and the
results.
L
Leon Brocard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Greg McCarroll sent the following bits through the ether:
>
> > in my original rule it was all to do with good programming style, not
> > eeking out every bit of performance, my reply was actually that i
> > thought dave choose a very grey area in terms
Greg McCarroll sent the following bits through the ether:
> in my original rule it was all to do with good programming style, not
> eeking out every bit of performance, my reply was actually that i
> thought dave choose a very grey area in terms of programming style
Indeed. And someone mentioned
* Leon Brocard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Greg McCarroll sent the following bits through the ether:
>
> > nope daves was a bad example
>
> Benchmark.pm - hard facts are better than guesses (hmm, I could do a
> talk on this...)
>
in my original rule it was all to do with good programming styl
Greg McCarroll sent the following bits through the ether:
> nope daves was a bad example
Benchmark.pm - hard facts are better than guesses (hmm, I could do a
talk on this...)
Leon
--
Leon Brocard.http://www.astray.com/
yapc::Europehttp://
* Piers Cawley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Greg McCarroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > * Piers Cawley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 11:25:18AM +, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> > > > > 6.) regular expressions
Greg McCarroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Piers Cawley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 11:25:18AM +, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> > > > 6.) regular expressions are not the only way to code, length and
> > > >
* Piers Cawley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 11:25:18AM +, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> > > 6.) regular expressions are not the only way to code, length and
> > > substr are in the language for a reason
> >
>
David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 11:25:18AM +, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> > 6.) regular expressions are not the only way to code, length and
> > substr are in the language for a reason
>
> Also index. These two snippets are equivalent:
>
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 11:25:18AM +, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> * Piers Cawley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > Thou shalt ensure that everything knows as little as possible about
> >anything else. (There's *got* to be a way to condense that...)
Thou shalt encapsulate?
> ok heres my 10 ru
* Piers Cawley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> David Hodgkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Was it here that we discussed the Perl commandments? You remember,
> > things like "thou shalt use strict and -w" and so on...
>
> I don't think we were.
David Hodgkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Was it here that we discussed the Perl commandments? You remember,
> things like "thou shalt use strict and -w" and so on...
I don't think we were. But:
Thou shalt not write the same thing twice.
Thou shalt not use
Was it here that we discussed the Perl commandments? You remember,
things like "thou shalt use strict and -w" and so on...
--
Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org
Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star http://www.deep-purple.com
Apache
29 matches
Mail list logo
