Talk:Pseudo-random numbers/PCG32: Difference between revisions
m
→The Pseudocode
m (→The Pseudocode) |
|||
Line 37:
::::: I just have to say that I find [[Van_Eck_sequence#Python:_Composition_of_pure_functions]] completely unintelligible, plus it is about 500 times slower (100,000 in 45s) than [[Van_Eck_sequence#Python:_Using_a_dict]] (1,000,000 in under 1s). Of course I also have to say that [[Van_Eck_sequence#Phix]] can manage 10,000,000 in 0.5s. --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 09:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
:::::: Absolutely, that's the beauty of Rosetta Code - approaches diverge, and divergence generates additional drafts, and sheds additional light.
:::::: I have noticed, for example, that there are those who seem more or less convinced by run-time speed as a proxy for quality (even to the point of spending long and happy weekends building stripped-down drag-racer languages :-) My own approach is a bit less exciting – I value productivity and reliability, to the point of feeling more than a little ashamed if I waste any time all in optimising prematurely, or even slightly more than is required for the task in hand.
:::::: Different people understand, and value, different things. Functional composition does require a few more concepts than the Sequence, Branch, and Loop-Mutate of the other religion, but those few extra concepts are all well rewarded – not least in more productivity and much less debugging :-) [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 00:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
| |||