On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 08:31:43AM +0100, Alexander Burger wrote:
So, again, thanks to you all for the support! I don't have to defend
that design decision in the future again! :)
With new users, this will come up over and over again.
But now there is sort of a FAQ to point to.
// Jakob
--
On 22-02-11 10:26 , Jakob Eriksson wrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 08:31:43AM +0100, Alexander Burger wrote:
So, again, thanks to you all for the support! I don't have to defend
that design decision in the future again! :)
With new users, this will come up over and over again.
But now there is
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:06:57AM +0100, Jon Kleiser wrote:
But now there is sort of a FAQ to point to.
// Jakob
This is the FAQ: http://www.software-lab.de/doc/faq.html#arrays
Oh, indeed! I forgot about that one. Good to know ;-)
Cheers,
- Alex
--
UNSUBSCRIBE:
Hi.
O(n) vs O(1) is large difference, however, there is rather simple way
out of the problem: instead of one vector L with indexes 1,...,9
L[1],...,L[9]
one can use symbols with names like
L1,...,L9
If Picolisp is fast enough with symbols, i.e. symbol access
time is
Hi Kazimir,
one can use symbols with names like
L1,...,L9
...
For a comparison, access to list is much slower:
...
(bench (do 100 (inc (nth List 5
149.812 sec
...
Generation of the symbol names has its price,
however, for lot of data, it is still faster
than list
