On 2015-10-12 19:56, dunb...@aol.com wrote:
"Sort" is consistently faster, up to 50%. Why "up to"? Try it several times. As per the other, newer part of this thread, timing based on such things as "ticks" needs to be run many times to get an accurate "average" reading. Other system processes come into play, as well as gremlins.
The most interesting question here (from a complexity O(n) vs O(nlog n) point of view at least) is at what length of list does the 'sort' version become slower than the 'repeat' version...
Mathematically, there has to be a minimum length of list for which this is true.
Mark. -- Mark Waddingham ~ m...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/ LiveCode: Everyone can create apps _______________________________________________ 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
