Anonymous user
Talk:Kaprekar numbers: Difference between revisions
Responded to Paddy3118 about code change criteria
(Responded to Paddy3118 about code change criteria) |
|||
Line 164:
Because the new version lacks additional generality beyond the 'slow version', decreases readability and the use of Lisp idioms, and is substantially slower than the previous version, I've decided to revert the changes made by Nigel. I added this talk section to explain my rationale for making the revision. --[[User:Lhignight|Larry Hignight]] 23:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
: Hi Lhignight, its good to see your criteria - I hope they are in decreasing order of importance for the general task, as optimising for speed can detract from the other concerns if done to excess - especially if a task can be 'adequately' fulfilled without it. Although you could add another implementation that was faster and leave a more idiomatic example alone. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 16:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
:: Fleshing this out a bit more, in terms of the order of importance, I consider correctness to be the most important criteria, performance the least (unless specifically mentioned in the task), and the remaining criteria are about equal in my opinion. In most programming languages, improved readability and use of language idioms are often highly correlated (at least among experienced users of the language). Performance is a nice bonus item, but if it detracts from any of the other criteria, it should be added as a separate task assuming that it is correct and significantly faster: 5% faster, skip it; 5x faster, add it. --[[User:Lhignight|Larry Hignight]] 23:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Larry, what implementation of common lisp are you using? I only replaced a function number of digits, which calculated the number of digits by dividing by 10 until less than 10 with floor (log N / log Base) which is a reasonable way to determine the number of digits in a number. This should be faster unless your implementation has no reasonable log function. Note that BASE and BASE-1 are not variables they are constants. I didn't change the logic. A mute point now as ledrug has done tha task properly.--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] 18:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
| |||