Anonymous user
Talk:Strange unique prime triplets: Difference between revisions
m
→added a stretch goal: added more comments.
(→added a stretch goal: added some comments.) |
m (→added a stretch goal: added more comments.) |
||
Line 40:
:::: a run of 10_000 takes <37 secs for the Python code. (I suspect the sieve library may be written in C). I am fine with the 1_000 limit as it stands --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 13:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
::::: Extending the limit based on one's own favorite computer programming language (or any one specific language) timings shouldn't be the criteria for a stretch goal. There are slower computer programming languages that wouldn't attempt a run of that size. The reason for this site is to compare (among other things) programming language constructs, algorithms, idioms, methods, etc, without having a contest to see how many numbers can be generated/produced in the shortest amount of time. I'd like to see less of how fast a certain computer programming language can execute/compute the results (for a stretch goal or whatever). I don't mind viewing the comparison of how fast dissimilar algorithms/methods are when using the same particular computer language (method '''A''' is 50% faster than method '''B'''). That being said, if it were me entering this Rosetta Code (draft) task, I would've added the stretch goal as part of the task's requirements as a "regular" requirement, and added a stretch goal of 10,000. That would've allowed "slower" computer programming languages to try to attempt the stretch goal if feasible, but still show how their programming language would tackle the goal of 1,000. Adding a stretch goal made it optional, noting that there were already existing solutions by the time I added the stretch goal, and very few of us (I think) don't appreciate moving targets for Rosetta Code tasks, draft or otherwise. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 13:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
|