On 2/26/16, Mattias Andrée <maand...@kth.se> wrote:
> Performance is not really something suckless
> concerns itself about. They favour solutions
> that are simpler to implement and maintain
> but asymptotically slower. But in the case of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
this is awful.
i don't understand this whole approach to computing.
why would you rather write *dumb*, *slow* code that "gets the job done",
instead of actually trying to make it decent?
programming trivial utilities isn't fun. why are you even writing code?
> tommath, I don't think it is asymptotically
> slower, at least not much, it is just makes
> a hugh about of memory allocations. Which is
> a very expensive operation.
>
> It should however be noted, that factor(1) is
> not intended to factorise huge numbers or brake
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
may as well just restrict it to uint64_t. or uint32_t. or char.
> RSA numbers, in fact GNU factor will reject to
> difficult numbers. It should just be able to
> factor reasonably large numbers. I think 50 times
> slower than GNU factor is acceptable, but 1000
^^^^^^^^^^
no it's not and you should be ashamed of yourself as a computer scientist.
> times slower is not. Keep in mind though, that
> the difference depends widely on the number that
> is being factorised.
>
---
xoxo iza
