Re: Re: Re: Filling buckets

Yeah I'd say performance probably doesn't really matter.

If it really isn't an issue then it would be better to rate the solutions on efficiency, maintainability, flexibility and coolness.

eg's solution may be the fastest in this set of benchmarks, but it doesn't include a variable number of buckets (which may be useful later in a project) and it isn't one the one that I personally (not begin a perl god) can understand and alter the fastest.

Maybe someone else can come up with a better, and overall rating....

Comment on Re: Re: Re: Filling buckets

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Filling buckets by Fastolfe (Vicar) on Jan 03, 2001 at 20:02 UTC
I wasn't trying to say one person's code sucked over another's. I was just giving benchmark information. When we have a lot of code offered like that I like to see statistics like that sometimes. A good benchmark usually means the coder has a good understanding of what operations in Perl are more efficient, and took that into account when offering his solution. In my eyes that's the sign of a very good Perl coder! Any arbitrary "rating" taking other aspects of their code into account would be incredibly subjective and not very useful. Readability is in the eye of the beholder, so to speak, so take a look at each of them and decide for yourself which one is the most elegant in your eyes for the efficiency it gets.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Filling buckets
by Fastolfe (Vicar) on Jan 03, 2001 at 20:02 UTC

Any arbitrary "rating" taking other aspects of their code into account would be incredibly subjective and not very useful. Readability is in the eye of the beholder, so to speak, so take a look at each of them and decide for yourself which one is the most elegant in your eyes for the efficiency it gets.

[reply]