<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
On 02/27/2011 11:45 AM, Robert Nesius wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTikhrF7C9=FYgUa5-f53aXtJFTQYgQD6aod=abu-@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 3:08 AM, Mike
Miller <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mbmiller%2Bl@gmail.com">mbmiller+l@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
<br>
It isn't very efficient, though. It took 13 minutes on my
machine.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
That's part of the fun of it. There are multiple twists you
can add for fun. <br>
<br>
1) Choosing the best language for a particular problem.<br>
2) Commit to solving in a particular language for the fun of
overcoming the challenges that presents (like bash, or lisp,
or erlang, or asm, etc...) <br>
3) Finding a solution that is computationally more efficient.
i.e., O(N^2) solution is readily apparent. Might there be
an O(N) or O(nlogn) approach that exploits underlying
properties? <br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
4) Combining 1) and 2) to find the most efficient solution overall,
or best library within a language for computational efficiency.
Great way to gain a better grasp of both language and algorithmic
strong/weak points. <br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Patrick "Finn" Robins
<br>
<em>Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind
don't matter and those who matter don't mind.<br>
- Dr. Seuss</em><br>
<img alt="" src="cid:part1.09010408.06020701@gmail.com"
height="20" width="350"></div>
</body>
</html>