Anonymous user
Talk:Sorting algorithms/Merge sort: Difference between revisions
Talk:Sorting algorithms/Merge sort (view source)
Revision as of 22:28, 23 January 2012
, 12 years ago→Java implementation: Aim for idiomatic
(→Java implementation: Good idea) |
(→Java implementation: Aim for idiomatic) |
||
Line 13:
== Java implementation ==
I don't know if you want functions tuned towards efficiency (rather than code readability), but the java implementation accesses a linked list through an index, which a big performance hit in any language. A much faster implementation (50x faster on a list of 100,000 elements) would be to use an iterator:
▲ int i = 0;
for (E d : m)
if (i++ < middle)
left.add(d);
else
right.add(d);</lang>
--[[User:Zastrowm|Zastrowm]] 17:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
:I made the change. It looks just as readable each way I think and since it's such a big performance boost it seems like a good idea. Thanks. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 19:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
: FWIW, we want ''idiomatic'' implementations. Good practice. Stuff that people with some smarts can look at and learn from. A small decrease in readability for a big gain in performance can be reasonable, though in (almost) all languages it is possible to be both fast and nice to read. (I have my doubts about a few, but maybe I just never grokked the æsthetic there…) That said, the above code looks quite readable to me too; iteration-looping is a wonderful thing. –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 22:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
| |||