Re: Questions from a Beginner.
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) May 16, 2009
- 1284 views
The stack "rot" operation still is O(n) after an "optimization" that appears in the manual where it should be O(1).
This is false.
Either you lie or you don't know better. In any case, further conversion with you seems pointless.
I am inclined to agree, when a conversation gets to the point where people are simply pointing fingers and saying "no you're lying", that conversation should probably end.
Since the relevant parts have been snipped from this part of the subthread, I'll provide a short summary for future readers of this post. Critic attempted to demonstrate a flaw in Euphoria by modifying a stack implementation written in Euphoria (which was written in response to another claim made by Critic). When told that his example was actually faster (thus doing the very opposite of demonstrating the flaw), he jumped to another unrelated issue that was discovered and reported on the same thread. This unrelated issue was since fixed. So, the first time the O(n) claim was made, it was shown to be false. The second time the claim was made, it was valid at the time, but no longer is.
I also note that this is not the first time Critic has accused a developer of lying.
