|
|
Posted by Onideus Mad Hatter on 08/28/05 01:46
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 12:13:51 -0700, "^reaper^" <knocking@deaths.door>
wrote:
>While sipping absinthe, Onideus Mad Hatter heard a loud sucking noise
>coming from alt.2600, and hastily inscribed the following unintelligible
>Sanskrit in <news:li40h197gp8ilj274knpd65h5mhphsdcvd@4ax.com>:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 00:07:59 -0700, "^reaper^" <knocking@deaths.door>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>While sipping absinthe, Onideus Mad Hatter heard a loud sucking noise
>>>coming from alt.2600, and hastily inscribed the following unintelligible
>>>Sanskrit in <news:9cjvg1p0p8o26pktudpqbu8rg48rh8tt67@4ax.com>:
>>>
>>>> Coming from teh moron who thinks compression = efficiency you'll have to
>>>> forgive me if all I can do is snicker at your naivety.
>>>
>>>That's a rather lame attempt at deflection considering I was talking about
>>>code optimization and not data compression.
>>
>> Oh, I'm sorry, how ~exactly~ does it differ, Kiddo?
>Oh, I'm sorry.
Would Reaper like a cracker?
>How humiliating it must be for you to continue showing your
>stupidity.
Squawk some more, Reaper.
>But wtf, I'll try to save you further embarassment by answering
>your idiotic question.
Oh now this should be good...*snicker*...
>Data compression involves various algorithms for reducing overall data set
>size.
So...what you're saying is that the goal of data compression is to
make something big...small, right?
^_^
Oh boy, yer just makin this too easy.
>Data compression algorithm choices are largely driven by the data
>type and destination. The resulting output can take the form of lossy or
>lossless compression ratios or rates. Data compression results directly
>translate to reduced storage and/or bandwidth requirements.
Well it's nice to know that if I ever wanted "your" opinion I could
just go to www.google.com
>Whereas code
>optimization involves making logic changes (that cannot be handled by a
>compiler or interpreter) to reduce computes that may (or not) result in a
>reduction of lines of code.
Uh oh, spin, SPIN! Every single supposed code optimization that
you've presented thus far in any of these froups Reaper has resulted
in a direct INCREASE of CPU cycles in an effort to try and REDUCE the
size of the code.
Or you now trying to tell us that you were WRONG all this time? `, )
He. he, he...yer makin this too easy. Go ahead, Trainable, keep
talkin, I'll start posting supposed snippets of "optimized" code that
you've done.
>For example, ordering and/or nesting decision
>blocks. Replacing unnecessary iteration with direct access calls. Using
>recursion for node walking. Instantiating arrays with predicted lengths.
>Passing variables by reference. Declaring local variables immediately
>before they're used. Using try/catch blocks for edc. Using regex for
>complex pattern matching or when testing for multiple patterns. Balancing
>binary trees. Using bit masking for setting and checking states. And most
>importantly, pulling your head otter your ass when coding so your proggie
>doesn't end up looking, smelling, and running like a pos.
My code run faster than yours. *shrugs* Yer so fuckin stupid you
forget that scripting languages are up to FIFTY times slower than
language like C++. It's like, hrmmm, gee dumbass, didn't ya bother to
take that into account before you started trying to use object
oriented language optimizations on web scripting languages? Fuckin
DUH!
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
[Back to original message]
|