Anonymous user
Talk:Multiplicative order: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
(→Clarification: reply) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 22:
that lacks one or more of these features.
[[User:Roger Hui|Roger Hui]] 18:06, 8 December 2007 (MST)
: There's no need to upload any image - it just takes a few sentences to describe the algorithm. And this algorithm has NOTHING, absolutely '''NOTHING''' that makes it in any way "natural" to J - I could write a C version as easily as the Haskell version, even for large numbers. Just a matter of using the right libraries (for example ''gmp'', in the C case). Sorry to shout, but I am really angry I head to spend several hours learning enough J to figure out the algorithm, for what you could have done in five minutes. And I '''hate''' wasting my time. And I hate even more playing silly hide-and-seek games just because people want to show off "their" language.
: J, like APL, has lots of interesting features. The maybe two most prominent are IMHO that you can use HOFs to combine existing functions (in J terminology, ''adverbs'' and ''conjunctions''), and that the nearly only data structure are arbitrary-rank tensors, so you have to organize the program around that. I'd love to see simple examples that illustrate this in comparison to other languages. But IMHO implementing each of the zillion algorithms of moderate difficulty from number theory or other maths fields is just a waste of time, because it tells you '''NOTHING''' about the language whatsoever. Again, sorry for shouting, but I am still quite angry. [[User:Dirkt|Dirkt]] 07:40, 9 December 2007 (MST)
=== Java solution ===
| |||