Aaron Rubinstein wrote: > >> Given just the idea of the data, can you improve on that? > > I bet I could!
I bet you could too :) > It's interesting how my instinct, when trying to develop a programming > solution, is to wrestle with the problem inside the context of the language. > As a result, the solutions I come up with tend to be shaped by my limited > understanding of that language. I think you're right that this is a case of > fluency, that I am fluent in English and my best problem solving skills are > most likely in that context. Trying to solve the problem in Perl, I'm likely > not using my best skills and thus come up with a poor solution. It's a frequent assumption that when you working with a tool of any sort, whether it's a knife and fork or a golf club, that you should work with that tool until you are proficient. But unless those tools are prescribed by the rules of the game in play then you should consider alternatives. I often eat from a ladle or wooden spoon when I am cooking, but etiquette says that I may not do the same at table; and getting a ball into a hole half a mile away by hitting it with a stick is not a good solution by any standards. More often than not, a programming language restricts what you can do over what you can describe using English, and while you can always get more out of any language by becoming familiar with it, you are usually becoming familiar with what is impossible or difficult rather than getting used to new exciting possibilities. > I also take from your advice, whether you meant it or not, that I should > approach my code as if it would be scalable. My solution is probably > adequate for a small scale problem but its silliness would quickly be > exposed as soon as the data scaled up. Never write off your solution as silly. If it works then it is a solution, and final solutions are almost never the best ones possible. I meant quite the opposite about scalability. My intention was to emphasize that the amount of data changes what is a good solution. It is a useful exercise to imagine that the data is printed on sheets of paper and that you have to solve the problem manually given just an aircraft hangar full of filing cabinets. If you have only a couple of sheets of paper with a single line printed on each, then you can just sit at your desk and write the output. But if you have several stacks of paper then you might want to start using the filing system. > Thanks for the advice and inspiration. You're more than welcome. Remember that the best way to solve a problem, whether it's a programming problem or any other sort, is to think about whether it's comparable to any situation you have already come across. It's called abstraction and it's your friend :) Rob -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://learn.perl.org/
