User talk:WillNess: Difference between revisions
reply
No edit summary |
(reply) |
||
Line 20:
Good morning,
Can you please undo the double-space style changes that you made on the Sieve thread-based solution? I find that kind of spacing much harder to read. Also, my intention in writing that code was to demonstrate Racket's ability to express solutions in different paradigms as well as show how such different solutions are really doing the same thing. For this reason I would like to keep unnecessary optimizations at a very minimal level. It's therefore questionable that the changes that you made (stepping by 2x, explicit 3 in the beginning) are worth it. Whatever speedup you get as a result of changing the argument order is definitely not worth it for this goal. So please avoid such optimizations -- not turning this website into a festival of obscure optimizations like the language shootout thing is one of its most appealing properties. Thanks, --[[User:Elibarzilay|Elibarzilay]] ([[User talk:Elibarzilay|talk]]) 03:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:Hi, Eli. About the spacing. For me, it is ''much'' more readable that way, and since I'm much less proficient than you are (no emotional charge here, just plain fact) at reading and writing Scheme/Racket, I can only assume that it will also be much easier for a casual reader, unfamiliar with the language -- which I assume ''is'' the target audience of this site. As for the evens "optimization", I'll try to revert it. -- [[User:WillNess|WillNess]] ([[User talk:WillNess|talk]]) 13:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
| |||