actuary77 wrote:
Robert Kern wrote:
actuary77 wrote:
#
# non-generator
#
def f1(afunc,aseed,n):
values = [afunc(aseed)]
for i in range(n-1):
values.append(afunc(values[-1]))
return v
Robert Kern wrote:
actuary77 wrote:
#
# non-generator
#
def f1(afunc,aseed,n):
values = [afunc(aseed)]
for i in range(n-1):
values.append(afunc(values[-1]))
return values[-1]
_b=time
Roy Smith wrote:
I believe Edouard Manet said it best, "Damn your recursion, Henri.
Iteration, however complex, is always more efficient." (extra points if you
can identify the source of that quote). It's not clear what language Manet
was talking about when he said that, but it's pretty much a
actuary77 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Recurse from time: 4.305942779541 seconds
>
> Iter from time: 0.009904632568359 seconds
>
> No comparison, why is recursion so slow?
I believe Edouard Manet said it best, "Damn your recursion, Henri.
Iteration, however complex, is always
actuary77 wrote:
#
# non-generator
#
def f1(afunc,aseed,n):
values = [afunc(aseed)]
for i in range(n-1):
values.append(afunc(values[-1]))
return values[-1]
_b=time()
for _i in range(
Robert Kern wrote:
actuary77 wrote:
Recurse from time: 4.305942779541 seconds
Iter from time: 0.009904632568359 seconds
No comparison, why is recursion so slow?
I usually don't delve too deeply into language design issues, so I hope
others will correct me if I'm wrong. Recursion
actuary77 wrote:
Recurse from time: 4.305942779541 seconds
Iter from time: 0.009904632568359 seconds
No comparison, why is recursion so slow?
I usually don't delve too deeply into language design issues, so I hope
others will correct me if I'm wrong. Recursion is usually slower t
Heiko Wundram wrote:
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 06:03, actuary77 wrote:
It now makes sense if I write it, (simple):
def rec2(n):
if n == 0:
return []
else:
return [n] + rec2(n-1)
Or, if you're not interested in a recursive function to do this job (which
should be way faste
