in reply to A (memory) poor man's <strike>hash</strike> lookup table.
Two things:
First:
Second: While hashes may have a tendancy to soak up a lot of memory, it's not using it for that long. I haven't done the math, but I would bet if you put a dollar amount on the time wasted using other methods vs. the amount of bog that you may incur to other programs at the same time on any given system, you would find you have saved tons of money using hashes. How many clock cycles do you waste waiting on inefficient languages to do their thing?
Bottom line to my statement is by looking at the big picture, you may be surprised!
Paulster2
PS: I ++ you anyway, even though I don't agree. Mainly because I found it a stimulating writ.
|
---|
Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
---|---|
Re: Re: A (memory) poor man's hash
by hardburn (Abbot) on Nov 21, 2003 at 18:43 UTC | |
by liz (Monsignor) on Nov 22, 2003 at 10:29 UTC | |
by etcshadow (Priest) on Nov 22, 2003 at 03:52 UTC |