Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!news.stack.nl!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Willem <willem@turtle.stack.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.programming
Subject: Re: algorithm analysis Big-O
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 19:21:50 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Stack Usenet News Service
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <slrnl39dqe.v0j.willem@turtle.stack.nl>
References: <25bf7834-1bb1-4702-9e18-0bd691958ec8@googlegroups.com> <O90Zt.29906$sr1.508@en-nntp-04.dc1.easynews.com> <864f4a00-4b92-4b20-a849-e4f6ce90c06b@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: turtle.stack.nl
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: mud.stack.nl 1379186510 5166 2001:610:1108:5010::132 (14 Sep 2013 19:21:50 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@stack.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 19:21:50 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.9p1 (OpenBSD)
Xref: csiph.com comp.programming:3731

malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com wrote:
) The other factor is that generally higher big(O) algorithms are more
) straightforwards, intuitive, easy to understand, easy to write and to
) check manually for correctness. That very often outweighs a saving in
) machine time.

I disagree.  For constant savings in machine time, I would agree with you,
but the consideration 'the dataset will never be very large' has turned
out to be false so often (with disastrous results) that I would never
rely on it.


SaSW, Willem
-- 
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
            made in the above text. For all I know I might be
            drugged or something..
            No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT