Re: Questions from a Beginner.
- Posted by Critic May 17, 2009
- 1262 views
To be fair, there are instances where euphoria does things in O(n) where other languages might do them in O(1).
Yes. Exactly.
In particular, where we might have to ref or deref a sequence to assign to one of its elements. However, comparing big-O notation isn't always the complete story. The complete story involves the trade offs to which I alluded.
An algorithm which requires O(n) instead of O(1) is crap and will break you neck soon enough. Always. Why do you think Quicksort has been invented? Because sorting in O(n^2) sucks big time, no matter how many micro-optimizations you implement. This has nothing to do with premature optimization.
There are work arounds for this in euphoria (Derek showed one in a previous thread). Most code won't need it, in part because euphoria can be very fast in other ways, at least compared to other interpreted languages.
"Very fast in other ways" does not help, especially since it is only "very fast" for micro benchmarks. Biggest bang comes from algorithmic optimizations. This is a well known fact.
Intellectual masturbation regarding computing theory is all well and good, but the sort that Critic has been talking about is really just another example of premature optimization.
O(n) vs. O(1) is not an example of premature optimization. That's ridiculous. Again you try to argue about things you don't know about or you consiously misrepresent the issue to defend EU.
And the social skills of a thermonuclear bomb, as Raymond Chen might say.
So what? Your argumentation skills consist of spreading FUD, so maybe you should mind you own business.
