Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #377117
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children |
| Date | 2016-10-21 13:19 +0200 |
| Organization | albasani.net |
| Message-ID | <20161021131946.6c5d8f56@maxa-pc.cpe.bvcom.net> (permalink) |
| References | <nt5rdf$35m$2@dont-email.me> <nt6ah6024gd@news3.newsguy.com> <nuanc6$909$2@dont-email.me> <ahjgud092.agx3@rooftop.invalid> |
On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 08:53:34 +0000 (UTC)
deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
> > On 10/6/2016 4:00 PM, Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Furthermore, the dumb fuck is actually manipulating strings,
> >> which always is a computationally very expensive undertaking.
> >
> >
> > My original code executed the join() string operation once for each
> > word in the input (78), plus once per line of screen output (8
> > more), for a total of 86 per run. Sounds like a lot.
> >
> > So I wrote a new routine that eliminated all but the 8 join()
> > outputs to screen. It keeps a running total of the length of words
> > (elements in the list), and when that total meets or exceeds the
> > block size, it join()s the applicable elements and writes the line
> > to screen.
> >
> > Basically:
> > * original code join()s strings then evaluates length.
> > * new code evaluates lengths of the strings then does join().
> >
> > The output of the two is identical.
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > import sys,time
> >
> > def split_ORIG(t,n,m):
> > w=str(t).split()
> > s,q=0,''
> > if w[0][0]=='>':
> > q=w[0]+' '
> > w.pop(0)
> > for e in range(1,len(w)-1):
> > if w[e][-1:]=='.':w[e]+=' '
> > if len(q)+len(' '.join(w[s:e+1]))>=m:
> > #print n,q+' '.join(w[s:e])
> > n+=1; s=e
> > #print n,q+' '.join(w[s:len(w)])
> >
> >
> > def split_NEW(t,n,m):
> > w=str(t).split()
> > s,q,z=0,'',0
> > if w[0][0]=='>':
> > q=w[0]+' '
> > w.pop(0)
> > for e in range(1,len(w)-1):
> > if w[e][-1:]=='.':w[e]+=' '
> > for i in range(s,e+2):
> > z+=(len(w[i])+1)
> > if len(q)+z>m:
> > #print n,q+' '.join(w[s:e+1])
> > n+=1;s=e+1
> > z=0
> > #print n,q+' '.join(w[s:len(w)])
> >
> >
> >
> > txt = "> Intel doesn't have to write a kernel from scratch. Nor does
> > Android. They can use Linux. And if they need to make
> > modifications for their own benefit, that's fine, just share that
> > back. They benefited by not having to develop from scratch. But
> > they need to give something back in return. Like the work they
> > added. Both parties are give and take something from each other.
> > I'll take that over the BSD license any day of the week."
> >
> > loops = int(sys.argv[1])
> >
> > n,b=1,60
> >
> > startTime = time.clock()
> > for j in range(loops): split_ORIG(txt,n,b)
> > endTime = time.clock()
> > print "ORIG : %.2g seconds" % (endTime-startTime)
> >
> > startTime = time.clock()
> > for j in range(loops): split_NEW(txt,n,b)
> > endTime = time.clock()
> > print "NEW : %.2g seconds" % (endTime-startTime)
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > $ python splitlength.py 1000
> > ORIG : 0.19 seconds
> > NEW : 0.38 seconds
> >
> >
> > I told your dumb ass before: python list operations are slow.
> >
> > Having to walk a list and check the size of each element is much
> > slower than joining the elements and checking the size of the
> > join()ed string.
> >
> > Got it, moron?
> >
> > As you like to say: "Don't post unless you know EXACTLY what you're
> > talking about".
> >
> > So to all you blabbermouths named Feeb Russell, we can only say:
> >
> > FAHCK YOU!! FAHCK YOU!!
> >
>
> python pwned by C.
> anon@lowtide:~/code/blah$ rm out
> anon@lowtide:~/code/blah$ time ./bah 15 40 1000 >out
>
> real 0m0.018s
> user 0m0.012s
> sys 0m0.004s
> anon@lowtide:~/code/blah$ wc -l out
> 13000 out
> anon@lowtide:~/code/blah$ head -n 20 out
> 15 > Intel doesn't have to write a kernel from
> 16 > scratch. Nor does Android. They can use
> 17 > Linux. And if they need to make
> 18 > modifications for their own benefit,
> 19 > that's fine, just share that back. They
> 20 > benefited by not having to develop from
> 21 > scratch. But they need to give something
> 22 > back in return. Like the work they
> 23 > added. Both parties are give and take
> 24 > something from each other. I'll take
> 25 > that over the BSD license any day of the
> 26 > week.
>
> 15 > Intel doesn't have to write a kernel from
> 16 > scratch. Nor does Android. They can use
> 17 > Linux. And if they need to make
> 18 > modifications for their own benefit,
> 19 > that's fine, just share that back. They
> 20 > benefited by not having to develop from
> 21 > scratch. But they need to give something
> anon@lowtide:~/code/blah$
>
[bmaxa@maxa-pc haskell]$ time ./split_line 15 40 1000 > out.txt
real 0m0.036s
user 0m0.033s
sys 0m0.000s
[bmaxa@maxa-pc haskell]$ wc -l out.txt
13000 out.txt
[bmaxa@maxa-pc haskell]$ head -n 20 out.txt
15 > Intel doesn't have to write a kernel
16 > from scratch. Nor does Android. They
17 > can use Linux. And if they need to make
18 > modifications for their own benefit,
19 > that's fine, just share that back. They
20 > benefited by not having to develop from
21 > scratch. But they need to give
22 > something back in return. Like the work
23 > they added. Both parties are give and
24 > take something from each other. I'll
25 > take that over the BSD license any day
26 > of the week.
15 > Intel doesn't have to write a kernel
16 > from scratch. Nor does Android. They
17 > can use Linux. And if they need to make
18 > modifications for their own benefit,
19 > that's fine, just share that back. They
20 > benefited by not having to develop from
21 > scratch. But they need to give
[bmaxa@maxa-pc haskell]$ cat split_line.hs
import System.Environment
import Control.Monad
reformat (x:xs) enum len = if x == '>'
then reformat' (words xs) [] [] enum
else reformat' (words (x:xs)) [] [] enum
where reformat' [] line lines i = unlines (lines ++ form i line)
reformat' (x:xs) line lines i = if length (unwords (x:line)) < len
then reformat' xs (x:line) lines i
else reformat'
(x:xs) []
(lines++form i line)
(i+1)
form i line = [show i ++ " > " ++ unwords (reverse line)]
main = do
args <- getArgs
let (enum:len:count:_) = map read args
replicateM count (putStrLn $ reformat txt enum len)
txt = "> Intel doesn't have to write a kernel from scratch. Nor does\
\ Android. They can use Linux. And if they need to make modifications for\
\ their own benefit, that's fine, just share that back. They benefited by\
\ not having to develop from scratch. But they need to give something back\
\ in return. Like the work they added. Both parties are give and take\
\ something from each other. I'll take that over the BSD license any day\
\ of the week."
--
press any key to continue or any other to quit
Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-10-06 11:42 -0400
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks <am@random.us> - 2016-10-06 20:00 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-10-06 19:31 -0400
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-10-07 00:20 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-10-06 20:55 -0400
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-10-07 01:04 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-10-06 22:11 -0400
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-10-07 02:19 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-10-06 23:20 -0400
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-10-07 03:33 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-10-07 00:02 -0400
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-10-07 04:22 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children fr314159@gmail.com - 2016-10-07 08:08 -0700
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-07 10:42 -0500
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-10-08 03:13 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-08 03:19 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-10-08 05:37 -0400
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-10 07:09 -0500
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-10 14:11 +0200
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-10 07:37 -0500
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-10-10 16:56 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-08 10:26 -0400
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-10-08 10:48 -0400
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-10-08 07:58 -0700
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-08 15:04 -0400
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-10-09 10:24 -0400
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-08 15:28 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-10-08 15:41 -0400
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-10-08 19:57 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-08 17:23 -0400
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-08 10:24 -0400
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-08 10:44 -0600
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-10-08 17:11 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-08 13:46 -0600
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-08 20:01 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-10-08 23:23 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-10-08 20:43 -0400
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-09 01:15 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-09 01:13 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 02:08 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-09 02:13 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-10-09 08:15 -0400
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-10 07:27 -0500
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-10-08 23:22 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-08 22:54 -0600
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-09 15:13 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-09 18:14 +0200
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-09 16:19 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-09 18:25 +0200
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-10 07:21 -0500
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-10 10:50 -0600
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-11-01 10:09 -0700
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-10-09 22:29 +0100
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-10-09 13:38 -0400
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-09 23:58 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-10 07:29 -0500
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-10-10 13:41 +0100
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-10 12:25 -0500
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-10-10 13:33 -0400
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-10 10:51 -0600
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-10 12:45 -0500
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-10 16:35 -0600
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-10 18:54 -0400
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-10 21:56 -0600
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-10-10 22:48 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-11 00:02 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-10 21:58 -0600
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-10 21:58 -0600
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-07 17:56 +0200
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-10-07 13:25 -0400
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks <am@random.us> - 2016-10-08 00:12 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-10-08 10:40 -0400
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-10-10 13:34 -0400
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-10-07 04:15 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-10-07 16:37 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-07 20:34 +0200
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 11:10 -0700
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-10-20 11:20 -0400
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-10-21 08:53 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-21 13:19 +0200
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-10-21 10:45 -0400
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-10-22 01:06 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-22 02:15 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-10-22 02:40 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-22 05:00 +0200
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-10-22 16:34 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-22 23:14 +0200
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-10-22 18:24 -0400
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-10-25 23:20 -0400
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-10-26 05:22 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-10-26 11:26 -0400
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-10-26 20:42 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-27 01:45 +0200
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-10-27 01:21 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-10-22 09:33 -0400
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-10-22 16:50 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-10-06 21:25 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-10-07 16:30 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 09:44 -0700
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-10-07 17:20 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-10-07 15:24 -0400
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-10-07 20:01 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-10-07 16:50 -0400
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-10-07 21:37 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-10-07 17:54 -0400
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-10-07 22:11 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-10-07 13:51 -0400
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-10-07 18:13 +0000
Re: Ping sbd: another programming challenge for your developmentally challenged children Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 11:10 -0700
csiph-web