71–80 of 183 posts
> Now, this is a time-memory tradeoff, but my time on this earth is limited so I decided to meta-program the if statements using a programmer program in a different programming language. for i in range(2*8): if i % 2 == 0: No comment...
This could be obviously done with much less code: Just add "if"s for all even number, and at the end just return "odd" if none of the evens matched. 50% less code! Or even simpler: If it's 0, return "even". If not, do a recursive call to n-1, if that equals "even", return "odd", otherwise return "even". But the best way is probably to just use a library. Yes, 500MB of additional dependencies, but then it's a one-line…
I prefer data-driven programming, so a simple: return odd_or_evenness[n]; works for me, alongside a pretty big array.
I prefer data-driven programming, so a simple: return odd_or_evenness[n]; works for me, alongside a pretty big array.
const odd_or_evenness = comptime blk: {
var buf: [16]bool = undefined;
var is_even = false;
for (&buf) |*b| {
b.* = is_even;
is_even = !is_even;
}
break :blk buf;
};
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Think deeply about it and tell me if it is not or or not even I think I just experienced a segfault
Why do they call it even when you of in the true number of out false odd the number?
> Now, this is a time-memory tradeoff, but my time on this earth is limited so I decided to meta-program the if statements using a programmer program in a different programming language. for i in range(2*8): if i % 2 == 0: No comment...
Yeah... I come here to talk about that. Should have been for i in range(0, 2**8, 2): print(" if (number == "+str(i)+")") print(" printf(\"even\\n\");") print(" if (number == "+str(i + 1)+")") print(" printf(\"odd\\n\");") or for i in range(0, 2**8, 2): print(f""" if (number == {i}) puts("even"); if (number == {i + 1}) puts("odd");""")
I would also like to praise the visionary genius Ross van der Gussom, without whom this wonderful achievement in software engineering would not have been possible!
> I decided to implement this in the C programming language as it’s by far the fastest language on the planet to this day (thanks to the visionary genius Dennis Richie) Am I lost? Aren't the compiler/linker responsible for fast code, not the language itself?
Most of the difference in speed is the optimizer/linker. Assuming a fair competition the difference between Ada, C, C++, D, Fortran, Rust, Zig (and many others I can't think of) is very rarely even 1% in any real world situation. Of course it isn't hard add pessimization to make any language lose, sometimes accidentally, so fair competitions are very hard to find/make.
Then again, the article was clearly sarcastic.
kind of expected gcc to see right through the 300 gigs of code and compile it down to the tenish instructions.
They disabled optimisations: > Lets compile the code, disabling optimizations with /Od to make sure that the pesky compiler doesn’t interfere with our algorithm