Most real-world code is dominated by interactions with external events. User inputs, shared devices and databases, chaotic networks and the omnipresent contention for cpu and other resources. Whilst we all benefit from highly tuned sorts and tree-traversal algorithms when we need them, the benefits derived from their tuning, in the reality of our tasks spending 50%, 70% or even 90% of their time task-swapped or waiting on IO, is usually much less than those ascribed to them via intensive studies performed under idealised conditions.And exactly how again does this support the notion that algorthimic analysis is mostly a waste of time? Maybe you're making the conjecture that P==EXP, since all problems are dominated by I/O? Please do the world a favor and share with us how you solve the traveling salesman problem in linear time (Just for us idealized theorists, please assume that the I/O takes a vanishingly small amount of time).
In reply to Re^6: Mathematics eq CompSci
by Anonymous Monk
in thread Mathematics eq CompSci
by kiat
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |