Geoff Canyon wrote:
The above code is just for the ID, but even on that task it doesn't seem to
do the same thing I did. The above will not flag this as a problem, but my
code would...
Earlier Jacque wrote:
That was what I ended up with too for sequencing checks. Then they said
something about "automatic duplicate checking" which Rails has and we
don't. I had enough repeat loops to make me dizzy. Your one-pass script
was better.
So it seems.
I would love to see that Ruby code. While it's possible that Ruby has
some nifty function that's especially useful here, whatever it is it
isn't magic; regardless of language, computers are too stupid to count
past 1, so the algorithms for such data manipulation can only be
optimized so much.
This reminds me of the RB vs Rev thread started here years ago by an
ardent RB fan with an xtalk grudge, only to discover in the end that
when it comes to string manipulation LC holds up very well against the
best of them. It's not always the fastest (though it was in that case
<g>), but even when it's slower it's not by enough to matter much
relative to the productivity gains of a typeless system.
I suspect, as it seems we're seeing here, that the Ruby code is "faster"
only because it's cutting a lot of corners.
--
Richard Gaskin
Fourth World
LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/FourthWorldSys
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
