It's stupid if you're benchmarking relative efficiency -- it's not an efficient implementation (and you'll have no trouble finding explanations for why the Python and Java code they wrote, while simpler, is not efficient).
And this is why we should not teach CS101 in Java or Python. If they'd been forced to use C this whole experiment would have turned out differently.
Not at all. If you wrote your C in memory string handling as stupidly as they wrote the Python and Java you will still get worse performance in C (e.g. each iteration malloc a new string and then strcpy and strcat into it, and free the old string; compared to buffered file writes you'll lose). It's about failing to understand how to write efficient code, not about which language you chose.
NEW SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY!
For n equal to one million, an O(n^2) algorithm is slower than an O(n) algorithm. Even when the O(n^2) algorithm is run in RAM, and the O(n) algorithm is disk writes being buffered and optimized by the operating system.
I'll take my Nobel Prize now, thank you.
-
This is word for word the first comment after the original story. However, as both commenters are named "Scott" it may not be plagurism but rather comment reuse.
The mafia style tactics were probably a reference to the sad case of Karen Silkwood, a whistleblower in the nuclear industry who had died under mysterious circumstances only a few years earlier.
If this magma reaches the surface it could result in lava flows.
-
Of course Minecraft is violent. Do you have any idea how many innocent instructions get executed to make it run?
Write-only code is easy in ANY syntax.
Write-only code is possible in any language. Some languages make it easier than others.
Or.........
as a computer scientist you could look into the field of evolutionary algorithms, discover that evolution is an applied science used by half of Fortune 500 companies, discover how evolution does work, and write your own code and witness first hand that evolution works.
-
Let's say 30% of the population are creationists.
Let's say 10% of Engineers are creationists, because creationists are less likely to pursue the field and/or because their education convinced them to no longer be creationists.
Let's say 1% of scientists are creationists, because creationists are less likely to pursue the field and/or because their education convinced them to no longer be creationists.
Result: Any creationist claiming to have a "science degree" has something like a 90% chance of turning out to have an engineering degree.... even though engineers are unlikely to be creationists.
That's the Salem Hypothesis. Creationists claiming science degrees tend to be engineers, even though engineers tend not to be creationists.
-
studies =shown there is no difference in effect between placebo groups and the group receiving EMF radiation
Which only goes to prove that the negative health effects of placebos can be as severe as the negative health effects caused by EMFs.
We need a law banning EMFs *and* banning placebos.
-
If you think organisms can't get rid of solid waste products, you must be full of shit. Chuckle.
-
How about using supercapacitors to convert 5 seconds of 60kW into 15 seconds of 20kW (less losses)?
5 seconds of 60kW = 300kJ. Supercapacitor energy densities are in the range 0.5 to 15 W-hour/kg according to Wikipedia. Say 5 Wh/kg, = 18000 J/kg, so you'd only need a few kg of supercapacitor to make this work. The only price I find is US$2.85 per kJ in 2006, putting the cost at around $1000, probably much less now (but there will also be costs beyond just the supercapacitor.)
You could also make this an option - not much point paying $2000 for this capability if the car is going to be in Singapore.
Thank God he did this. If the GPS system had been launched we'd all be dead by now.
-
To do nothing is to be nothing.
