Anonymous user
Talk:Ordered words: Difference between revisions
→No Dictionary?: possible solution
m (→A bug (which was not really a bug) in Rexx solution: correct misspelling of exhausts. -- ~~~~) |
(→No Dictionary?: possible solution) |
||
| (10 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 96:
I dare not change your program.
: The misspelling wasn't in the program, but the REXX language entry section header. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 23:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
: I had programmed the REXX example to expect a lexicographical ordered word list. I corrected the error. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 06:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Line 230 ⟶ 231:
I don't like to use words like ''mere'' which preloads a judgement.
30% of an 20 hour run is an extra
I took your program ''as is'' and ran it on my isolated computer (no internet connection, no active anti-virus protection programs running, etc, it's a 3.20 GHz box and is running all four processors with five 100%-CPU-bound unrelated programs on below-normal priority), and the results are:
Line 260 ⟶ 261:
* a repetition of both invocations to eliminate snowplowing
* use of FOR instead of TO in DO loops for faster execution
* disallowing the
* made invocations unique by using unique passed arguments
* eliminating piggy-backing by not using the same variables
Line 344 ⟶ 345:
These are the results for REXX exact vs. regular comparisons as per Walter's request.
<br>I no longer have the original ''regular compare'' vs. ''exact compare'' REXX
<br>but I took the (above) existing code and ripped its guts out (er,
<br>simple benchmark test out of it.
I soon discovered that the two versions of the '''if''' statement was being
<br>overhead of the '''do''' loop, so I unrolled the '''if''' statements.
Just for grins, I reversed the order of the compares on every other compare, and I was
<br>somewhat surprised that more CPU time was
<br>I left that modification in the benchmark program.
Line 358 ⟶ 359:
<br>installed on my two computers, plus an o-o REXX interpreter:
::* R4
::* ROO
::* Regina
::* Personal REXX
<lang rexx>/*REXX*/ parse version _; say 'version:' _; say
Line 455 ⟶ 456:
<br>As with most benchmarks, I often feel that I'm leading a horse to water ...
<br> -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 23:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
P.S.: I benchmarked the programs on an air-gap computer. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 07:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
-----
ooRexx Results for the above 2 programs thar surprised me (a little):
<pre>
Line 468 ⟶ 473:
</pre>
--[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] 05:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
==Ruby Golfing?==
It looks as if the last Ruby example is just a "Code golf" solution and is not idiomatic Ruby. If so then it probably shouldn't be on RC.
What do you think?<br>
--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 09:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
It's pretty idiomatic (would add a couple more spaces and use full words instead of chars for variables), but I agree that it ventures closer to that realm. So, I deleted it.
I was comparing my solution to the "short local version" of the python code. I would argue that my one line of ruby code (which I pulled) is more idiomatic than the python code for the "short local version". The python code fails to use variable names (uses single char variable names), and it leaves a dangling filehandle in the way the file is opened (should use a with..as context manager). Also, given that python is at version 3.4, the use of 2.X print statement syntax is outdated (should be a print function). In other words, I think an argument could be made that my one liner is more idiomatic ruby than the python "short local version". Perhaps that one should be updated in a similar fashion? [I don't really care, I'm just bringing it up for the sake of consistency].
--[[User:Jtprince|Jtprince]] ([[User talk:Jtprince|talk]]) 15:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
==No Dictionary?==
At this moment, the URL for the dictionary (http://www.puzzlers.org/pub/wordlists/unixdict.txt) is returning a 401. Is any action required to remedy this?
--[[User:Balrog|Balrog]] ([[User talk:Balrog|talk]]) 20:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
: Yes, it would be nice to have a (stable) version of the '''unixdict.txt''' stored somewhere on Rosetta Code, that way, any new computer programming examples would be consistent with those entered before the latest updates or changes that might have been made to the original (dictionary) file. Plus it would eliminate the possibility of any 401 and 404 errors, and the possibility of added cookies from the original host site mentioned above. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 22:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
::I started to look into it, but have to stop, myself. I got as far as [http://www.puzzlers.org/word-lists this page] which states that '''some''' of the lists may be open-source. If someone finds that we could site the list here then we might then try and get a copy re-hosted; but it would have to be the exact same page or saved as a latin_1 encoded text file. (We would not want a copy to cause problems with existing code).
:::I successfully accessed the wordlist using the "Wayback Machine" with this URL ==> https://web.archive.org/web/20180611003215/http://www.puzzlers.org/pub/wordlists/unixdict.txt
:::I'll edit that URL into the page. If that's a mistake feel free to back out my change.
:::--[[User:Balrog|Balrog]] ([[User talk:Balrog|talk]]) 19:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
| |||