in reply to Re: Help with Space Efficency algorithim
in thread Help with Space Efficency algorithim

> there's no shortcut to the best result.

Laziness -- brute force (exhaustive combination) is perhaps easiest to code (although first fit decreasing is pretty easy)

Impatience -- exhaustive combination dies a horrible flaming death somewhere in the high teens, unless your computer is a lot faster than mine. First Fit Decreasing needs a sort, but that isn't a big deal until you get into too many DVDs to want to hand process.

Hubris -- exhaustive combination will achieve the optimal result, but first fit decreasing will come within 11% of it. What price glory?

  • Comment on Re^2: Help with Space Efficency algorithim

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Help with Space Efficency algorithim
by LighthouseJ (Sexton) on Dec 31, 2007 at 02:49 UTC
    heh. well, as I see it, laziness applies to execution, not ease of programming. Impatience is more of a direct result of taking shortcuts, i.e. utilizing a sorting algorithm. I'm not looking for glory, just the best answer.

    I don't know about you but I don't get the luxury of living 11% away from correct.

    "The three principal virtues of a programmer are Laziness, Impatience, and Hubris. See the Camel Book for why." -- `man perl`