But then you have to calculate modulus for 200 or 320.
FizzleFade
11–20 of 182 posts
Re: FizzleFade
#12I have the feeling that knowledge about bits is lacking by a lot of younger coders. And I also think this is what causes bloatware. CPUs are powerful enough to use a naive fade transition. But coders who are aware of the internal workings can make it even faster on todays hardware. Great article and imho still relevant on todays much more powerful computers.
Re: FizzleFade
#13I have the feeling that knowledge about bits is lacking by a lot of younger coders. And I also think this is what causes bloatware. CPUs are powerful enough to use a naive fade transition. But coders who are aware of the internal workings can make it even faster on todays hardware. Great article and imho still relevant on todays much more powerful computers.
I dont particularly care for your generalisation about younger coders, as a younger coder. There are many of us who do care about the low level details of our code, and take extra care to write good performant code. To make a generalisation about "older" programmers - I have the feelings that older coders are stuck in their ways and aren't willing to change their behaviours, and when a younger coder tries to suggest…
But knowledge about inner workings helps to understand what is going on and what can be improved.
So I don't say you should use a non GC language for example. But knowledge about memory management can help to understand memory leaks.
Re: FizzleFade
#14Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_congruential_generator A pseudo-RNG that cycles through a all elements of a modulo-ring. Example for a 2^32 bit cycle: X(n+1) = (a * X(n) + c) mod m a = 134775813 c = 1 m = 2^32
Re: FizzleFade
#15Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_congruential_generator A pseudo-RNG that cycles through a all elements of a modulo-ring. Example for a 2^32 bit cycle: X(n+1) = (a * X(n) + c) mod m a = 134775813 c = 1 m = 2^32
My approach would be something like this, but with a very "poor" generator with the parameters a=81007, c=0 and m=2^17. This approximates a low discrepancy sequence (additive recurrence with alpha=1/golden ratio). Then I would calculate x and y values using the hilbert curve and the calculated pseudorandom number as the index (more precisely two Hilbert curves next to each other, so it covers a 512x256 rectangle). On…
(quick note: in your source the function is called hilebert instead of hilbert)
Re: FizzleFade
#160. http://jm.planetarydefenses.net/sense/refs/ref14_golomb.pdf
Re: FizzleFade
#17I have the feeling that knowledge about bits is lacking by a lot of younger coders. And I also think this is what causes bloatware. CPUs are powerful enough to use a naive fade transition. But coders who are aware of the internal workings can make it even faster on todays hardware. Great article and imho still relevant on todays much more powerful computers.
> I have the feeling that knowledge
> about bits is lacking by a lot of
> younger coders. And I also think
> this is what causes bloatware
From a management perspective, I wonder if people find older developers miss obvious solutions that involve throwing small amounts of money and/or hardware at business problems, and instead turn to "clever" solutions that are costly in terms of extra developer time needed for developer and maintenance.Certainly when running technology in an SME I found my gut feelings about many cost/benefit questions were often invalidated by the ever-decreasing cost of computing power, both in terms of physical hardware and cloud resources.
Re: FizzleFade
#18I have the feeling that knowledge about bits is lacking by a lot of younger coders. And I also think this is what causes bloatware. CPUs are powerful enough to use a naive fade transition. But coders who are aware of the internal workings can make it even faster on todays hardware. Great article and imho still relevant on todays much more powerful computers.
I dont particularly care for your generalisation about younger coders, as a younger coder. There are many of us who do care about the low level details of our code, and take extra care to write good performant code. To make a generalisation about "older" programmers - I have the feelings that older coders are stuck in their ways and aren't willing to change their behaviours, and when a younger coder tries to suggest…
Re: FizzleFade
#19I have the feeling that knowledge about bits is lacking by a lot of younger coders. And I also think this is what causes bloatware. CPUs are powerful enough to use a naive fade transition. But coders who are aware of the internal workings can make it even faster on todays hardware. Great article and imho still relevant on todays much more powerful computers.
Man, was I shocked. Very smart, highly educated, mid-level and even senior software engineers seem to know very little about bits these days. When they'd run into a memory issue, their natural response was to just spin up a few more servers and throw another terabyte of memory at the problem. Makes sense, I guess - until their CFO saw their pretty exponential curve in infrastructure costs.
Re: FizzleFade
#20I have the feeling that knowledge about bits is lacking by a lot of younger coders. And I also think this is what causes bloatware. CPUs are powerful enough to use a naive fade transition. But coders who are aware of the internal workings can make it even faster on todays hardware. Great article and imho still relevant on todays much more powerful computers.