Last night I posted Bob my stab at optimisation.
I disagree with him when he says...
>.... I don't think another algorithm would save much time. Now
A change in algorithm is the FIRST thing I'd suggest! When something's
running slow, have a think about your method, way before you have a think
about your coding! I've ended up with a sorted list of indexes to the
objects in something approximating 300 cycles and around 107 bytes. Cycle
counting my code is very difficult, and besides its early and I don't do
mornings. Don't be disillusioned if you can't match that, because I'm
probably wrong :)
My submission to Bob was private in order that I didn't ... uh...
"influence" anyone else's solution - but I will be happy to post privately
to any non-competing interested party. I expect to post my solution on the
list when Bob announces the "winner".
My code was a paper-solution, rather than a tested one. So, all the usual
disclaimers and provisos apply.
Cheers
A
--
Archives (includes files) at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/archives/
Unsub & more at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/stella.html
