Learn Big O ITT

* O(2^n) very very slow
* O(n^2) pretty slow...
* O(n log n) nice and efficient
* O(n) very fast
* O(1) instant

O(1) is not instant.

It could take a year for O(1) algorithm where O(2^n) algorithm could take milliseconds.

It has to do with scaling and at what threshold does n start being considered large enough to matter.

In real life, n doesn't approach infinity.

>>2
>>3
>>4
theoreticians

>>1
engineer

>>5
Wrong, I'm an engineer.

>>5
Optimise your quotes, 「下さい」.

>>7
shit off with your shitmeme

Leart about performance here:

Next, on my local programming IRC channel, I shared a little trick I’d seen on Twitter for replacing a div with a shift: (i+1)%3 == (1<<i)&3 for i in [0, 2]. One person strenuously objected to the idea of using this trick. Paraphrasing, their argument went something like "the meaning of the code is not clear, so tricks like that should be left to the compiler, but it doesn’t work for all values of i, so a compiler would never actually substitute the left for the right. Just don’t bother."

http://chadaustin.me/2015/04/thinking-about-performance/

Truly Expert.

>>9
That's a rather common ``trick'' if you have any assembly experience whatsoever.

>>10
But it's one you just shouldn't bother with!

having a fight and falling out with someone on IRC over being wrong about an abosolute worthless microoptimization "trick" that the compiler does for you

#justprogrammerthings

>>12
Whom are you quoting?

>>13
back to jp with you

>>14
What is a ``jp''?

>>14
Back to /g/ with your epic >memes.