Your code was an alternative to PDL, which means you don't have to copy its problems. If you're going to sacrifice the speed of PDL, you might as well gain a memory advantage.
Piddles have the speed advantage.
My code has the memory advantage.
Your code has the worse of both.
| [reply] |
Concerning, "Your code has the worse of both." It has the advantage of being very easy though. Have you used a computer where putting 10,000*100 things in memory was a problem in the last 20 years?
The advantage of perl is the simple implementations you can achieve, not its speed. If speed was that much of a problem, why not use C or assembler?
Don't get me wrong, the incremental approach you show is superior. Definitely. But it's not as easy and easy was the point of my "worse" code.
Lastly, since you got me in an argumentative and defensive mood: if you want to outperform both perl and piddles, just let the database do the work — which is the point of last part of my post.
In short: jeese...
| [reply] |