Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!us.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.fsmpi.rwth-aachen.de!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript
Subject: Re: Optimise adder
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 21:40:45 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <87382pll4i.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <a93ee3a0-39f5-408b-9f33-8d193e22e0dc@googlegroups.com> <874mn6m0tt.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <140fbc59-9fd9-41dd-bcb5-55b8c304e5b8@googlegroups.com> <87vbfllxxb.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <69862aa5-cdf8-4d22-beca-c37c59b90e63@googlegroups.com> <87egm9lpmh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <2823f00c-b09d-45df-b14c-5eadf3d141b8@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="017616aa25f81ec581c44d76d61ba2f3"; logging-data="11377"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19EhUaz2c/ZWgNsBh66kh9snPKiFYygL8U="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qQoT++QTghtvmQmCw4zBEaNMGs4= sha1:OKzeF6xHQ2vZR1u6d7Bm2pWZYU8=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.a05f22dd54b4d84f011d.20150521214045BST.87382pll4i.fsf@bsb.me.uk
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:27799

jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:

> Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 21:03:40 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
>> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
>> 
>> > Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 18:04:22 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
>> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
>> >> 
>> >> > Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 17:01:39 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
>> >> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> > Feel free try to make it faster
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Optimising bad code is not an appealing project.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> The correct plan is to re-write it as a proper function and, what's
>> >> >> more, make it a function that operates on some big number object type.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> > but still keep it general "anybase".
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> It does not seem to permit any base.  You claimed to be allowing
>> >> >> arbitrary precision numbers as the base, but the code assumes that the
>> >> >> base is an ECMAScript Number value.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> <snip>
>> >> >> -- 
>> >> >> Ben.
>> >> 
>> >> Is there any chance that I can persuade you to follow Usenet conventions
>> >> and (1) snip signatures; (2) reply in-line to the points being made?
>> >> 
>> >> > Actually it is infinite precision arithmetic, i have no idea what you
>> >> > mean you simply feed it two times if you want decimals, and carry over
>> >> > a 1 if to the second add if needed. There is no extra penalty in time
>> >> > for that. The decimals Points is handled by the parser.
>> >> >
>> >> > It permit anybase, but you have to format your number into that base
>> >> > Before feeding the function, try base two.
>> >> 
>> >> The code you posted does not permit any base.
>> >
>> > Not true, here i changed base same code, different number format.
>> 
>> Yes, true.  Here's a test case for you:
>> 
>>   base=9007199254740992;
>>   var arrOne = [base-1];
>>   var arrTwo = [2];
>
> You are very confused why do you think it is wrong? 
> 1,1
> Timing = 4 ms

I get [0,1] using two command-line implementations and three browsers.

> Think again ..........90+2 would be 1,0 comes out like this.
>
> 0,1
> Timing = 4 ms
>
> base=900719925474092;
> var arrOne = [900719925474090];
> var arrTwo = [2];

What's this got to do with my example?  Did you actually try my test
case?

-- 
Ben.