Page 3 of 5
Posted: Sat 02 Jul, 2005 11:55 am
by kv83
16 Bytes?!
you rule so much
But wasn't you the one saying:
CoBB wrote:I don't think I'll participate in anything like that. I prefer working slowly, on long-term projects, because it's much easier to distribute over my sporadic free time.
hehe *hides*
Posted: Sat 02 Jul, 2005 1:40 pm
by Jim e
Posted: Sat 02 Jul, 2005 4:30 pm
by CoBB
This only took some minutes. The former contests would require orders of magnitude more. And Jim, the speed contest is still open for you. Actually, I wouldn't consider the size contest finished either.
Posted: Sat 02 Jul, 2005 5:26 pm
by Jim e
These kinda of things aren't my expertise, I only knew of a couple of sorting methods. So making a faster sorter than you or anyone else is unlikely. Smaller was my best chance, but those two bytes are laughing in my face.
You honestly think someone can go smaller than 14 instuctions. If you can, you have a loyal minion right here man.
Posted: Sat 02 Jul, 2005 6:00 pm
by CoBB
I did now.
Trivial optimisations are the hardest to notice apparently... I can still imagine someone doing better though.
Posted: Sat 02 Jul, 2005 7:13 pm
by Jim e
Damm you!!! That was so obvious How could I not see that!!!
Oh well.....
What is thy bidding my master.
Posted: Sat 02 Jul, 2005 7:23 pm
by CoBB
Well, why don't you stop bowing? I never liked formality.
Posted: Sat 02 Jul, 2005 9:51 pm
by kv83
How do we test the speed of the routines? I am rather bad in that sort of stuff... isn't their a cycle counter or something
Posted: Sat 02 Jul, 2005 10:24 pm
by CoBB
Yes, there is on Pentium CPUs.
Stopwatch, naturally. Well, in this case you could do it with a custom interrupt routine, since it doesn't affect the relative speeds.
Posted: Sat 02 Jul, 2005 11:07 pm
by kv83
CoBB wrote:Yes, there is on Pentium CPUs.
Stopwatch, naturally. Well, in this case you could do it with a custom interrupt routine, since it doesn't affect the relative speeds.
you do say it like it is something easy to write
Posted: Sun 03 Jul, 2005 10:21 am
by Kozak
Well it's hard to test speed since some routines will vary in speed depending on the size of the array.
BTW: Jim e what is the name of your sorting algorithm.
Posted: Sun 03 Jul, 2005 11:23 am
by coelurus
The performance issue isn't really a problem, kv83 should have some methods to measure by now
Posted: Sun 03 Jul, 2005 11:54 am
by Jim e
The name, it's suppose to be sorter, the algorithm no clue. I should have done more research, can't doubt the memory efficiancy of stupid sort now. I guess i should try for speed. Do the same rulez still apply?
Posted: Sun 03 Jul, 2005 2:23 pm
by Kozak
Is your algo also a stupid sort? I saw CoBB made one.
Posted: Sun 03 Jul, 2005 3:20 pm
by leofox
can i make one in basic? Without using the list sort functions of course.
