Live data from Hacker News

Speed Without Wizardry

fitzgeraldnick.com

71–72 of 72 posts

Re: Speed Without Wizardry

#71
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go ahead and tell that to everyone who has been using that phrase to mean what I describe. I seriously searched for a single case of someone using the phrase in the manner you're insisting is correct and came up empty. Instead, I found a large number of resources backing up what I and OP have been stating. Even many professional mathematicians acknowledge the ambiguity but agree that the phrase means to multiply. You…

Thanks for posting the first few links from using Google. Here are some other links from Google that explains why your vociferous insistence is wrong. http://www.crackssat.com/isee/word-problems/question-250-ans... https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/8680/how-much-ex... https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/increase-by-a-factor... https://books.google.com/books?id=wDKLXdzQL5AC&pg=PA182&lpg=... http://econlo…

"100% increase" != "increase by a factor of 1".

You seem to be stuck on the translation here. These are two different phrases with different meanings. Yes, they both refer to increases. Yes, they both can be interpreted as multiplications on the original term. No, they are not the same. You found exactly one case which does not use the same verbage and specifically points to percentages. I don't know how else to say that different phrases in English carry different meanings. You can't just say "a factor of X" is equivalent to "X00%". This just is not understood to be true. Even the GMAT and GRE present questions in this way with the understanding that "a factor of X" means to multiply by X.

I'm not going to continue to explain this to you. There's really nothing more to be said. If you attempt to solve problems presented in the format of "increased by a factor of X" such that X is not presented as a percentage, you will be marked as incorrect more often than not.

I'm not even explicitly arguing for a populism argument. I'm stating that the problem is presented in a different format than you are claiming it to be.

Re: Speed Without Wizardry

#72
post #60
post #39

I've got to admire the graciousness in this response. It's making the point that mraleph's “Maybe you don’t need Rust and WASM to speed up your JS” article completely neglected code maintainability as a factor, but it does so without turning the whole thing into a pissing match. It's all been a fascinating to read.

> completely neglected code maintainability Where did I neglect maintainability as a factor? The only optimization that potentially affects maintainability is manually allocating Mapping-s in the typed array. And there I openly acknowledged that it affects readability and makes the code error prone. All other optimizations are not in any way affecting maintainability. Even typed array optimization is purely confined…

Turning a function into a string and back is also a reduction in maintainability, as programmers now have to be sure it doesn't use any captured variables or such, in future edits. Using a Uint8Array and integer constants rather than a string and character constants makes the code harder to read. Separating the sorting pass and doing some of it lazily (for good performance reasons) makes the final ordering slightly less clear.

But "completely neglected code maintainability" is definitely unfair. While you made changes that reduced maintainability, you weren't neglectful.

Post reply on HN