Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!killer!pollux!dalsqnt!rpp386!jfh From: jfh@rpp386.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Value of microeffiency (was: Re: Optimal ...) Message-ID: <3693@rpp386.UUCP> Date: 8 Jul 88 00:47:59 GMT References: <163@navtech.uucp> <2775@ttrdc.UUCP> <164@navtech.uucp> <3401@rpp386.UUCP> <416@proxftl.UUCP> Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.UUCP (The Beach Bum) Organization: Big "D" Home for Wayward Hackers Lines: 27 In article <416@proxftl.UUCP> bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes: >In article <3401@rpp386.UUCP>, jfh@rpp386.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) writes: >> i don't know what value microefficiency has this week, but in general, >> writing good solid algorithms is what is important. > > There is no argument against the idea that a good >algorithm is the proper base from which to start (though there is >certainly room for discussion as to what constitutes a good >algorithm). But, a good algorithm is ONLY THE BEGINNING. er, just the same way the in order to build a strong building you have to have a solid foundation. but that is, after all, only the beginning. if i write a sort routine with O(n*ln n) and you write one O(n**2), how much ``micro optimization'' is it going to take to outperform my poorly implemented, but superior time complexity, algorithm? if your idea of a really swell sort algorithm is a bubble sort, no matter how much optimizing you perform you are going to lose. even a highly optimized bad algorithm is still a bad algorithm. - john. -- John F. Haugh II +--------- Cute Chocolate Quote --------- HASA, "S" Division | "USENET should not be confused with UUCP: killer!rpp386!jfh | something that matters, like CHOCOLATE" DOMAIN: jfh@rpp386.uucp | -- with my apologizes