Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #29168
| References | <XnsA0CE7D6F43F18duncanbooth@127.0.0.1> <1017333532.1009581.1347628946603.JavaMail.root@sequans.com> <CAF_E5JY6c+QfYGo9N=0p7HdSa6NX8oL-Hj9gR6=7TayQeOqmoA@mail.gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-15 00:41 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: Decorators not worth the effort |
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Message-ID | <mailman.705.1347633665.27098.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 12:12 AM, andrea crotti <andrea.crotti.0@gmail.com> wrote: > def fib(n): > if n <= 1: > return 1 > return fib(n-1) + fib(n-2) > > @memoize > def fib_memoized(n): > if n <= 1: > return 1 > return fib_memoized(n-1) + fib_memoized(n-2) > > > The second fibonacci looks exactly the same but while the first is > very slow and would generate a stack overflow the second doesn't.. Trouble is, you're starting with a pretty poor algorithm. It's easy to improve on what's poor. Memoization can still help, but I would start with a better algorithm, such as: def fib(n): if n<=1: return 1 a,b=1,1 for i in range(1,n,2): a+=b b+=a return b if n%2 else a def fib(n,cache=[1,1]): if n<=1: return 1 while len(cache)<=n: cache.append(cache[-1] + cache[-2]) return cache[n] Personally, I don't mind (ab)using default arguments for caching, but you could do the same sort of thing with a decorator if you prefer. I think the non-decorated non-recursive version is clear and efficient though. ChrisA
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Decorators not worth the effort Jean-Michel Pichavant <jeanmichel@sequans.com> - 2012-09-14 11:28 +0200
Re: Decorators not worth the effort Duncan Booth <duncan.booth@invalid.invalid> - 2012-09-14 11:26 +0000
Re: Decorators not worth the effort andrea crotti <andrea.crotti.0@gmail.com> - 2012-09-14 15:12 +0100
Re: Decorators not worth the effort Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-09-15 00:41 +1000
Re: Decorators not worth the effort 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-09-14 09:37 -0700
Re: Decorators not worth the effort 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-09-14 09:37 -0700
Re: Decorators not worth the effort andrea crotti <andrea.crotti.0@gmail.com> - 2012-09-14 17:15 +0100
Re: Decorators not worth the effort Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-09-15 03:30 +1000
Re: Decorators not worth the effort Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2012-09-18 13:19 +0000
Re: Decorators not worth the effort Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-09-18 23:25 +1000
Re: Decorators not worth the effort 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-09-18 08:14 -0700
Re: Decorators not worth the effort 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-09-18 08:14 -0700
RE: Decorators not worth the effort "Prasad, Ramit" <ramit.prasad@jpmorgan.com> - 2012-09-14 23:14 +0000
Re: Decorators not worth the effort Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-09-14 12:01 +0000
Re: Decorators not worth the effort Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2012-09-14 08:06 -0500
Re: Decorators not worth the effort Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-14 18:13 -0700
Re: Decorators not worth the effort Ulrich Eckhardt <ulrich.eckhardt@dominolaser.com> - 2012-09-14 13:49 +0200
csiph-web