P is for Practical | |
PerlMonks |
Re: Re: about Coolness, Impatience and Complexityby Blop (Monk) |
on Jul 12, 2001 at 19:55 UTC ( [id://96082]=note: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
I recognize this module as an interesting insight into a possible
evolution of computers. I do understand that it describes methods
that, if implemented in hardware with the appropriate technics, would: I live in a real world, work with a real PC, and have seen real people using this module. Its documentation does not say "this is a joke", and it is really available on CPAN. If it was intended only as a joke, I had no way to know it, as its documentation doesn't say so. Moreover, for the reasons stated above, and for the fact that it provides a concise, expressive, elegant way of doing certain things (including computing minimums if you are not in a hurry) I do not think it should be considered <it>mainly</it> as a joke. But I probably put too much focus on Q::S. I mainly intended it as an example to illustrate one of the possible shortcomings of <it>"concise, expressive, elegant"</it> ways of doing things: people misunderstanding how much calculus there is behind a simple, innocent, pretty expression.
Concerning the particular complexity of this prime number tester,
I have to agree with you, Abigail. <it>It's just using different units
than I am used to.</it> The problem is that the units are not
specified. I did understand that Damian was expressing his
complexity in terms of elementary quantic operations. But please
admit that in everyday programming, what interests most of us is
complexity in terms of time (or space, sometimes). This O(1) is
pure prospective and does not mean much for the pragmatic
programmer of today. (Maybe I should try and be more concise myself.) BTW, you seem to like polemics, Abigail, and I like that too :). Blop!
In Section
Meditations
|
|