Value of microeffiency (was: Re: Optimal ...)

[John F. Haugh II]

In article <416 at proxftl.UUCP> bill at proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes:
>In article <3401 at rpp386.UUCP>, jfh at rpp386.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>> i don't know what value microefficiency has this week, but in general,
>> writing good solid algorithms is what is important.
>
>        There is no argument against the idea that a good
>algorithm is the proper base from which to start (though there is
>certainly room for discussion as to what constitutes a good
>algorithm). But, a good algorithm is ONLY THE BEGINNING.

er, just the same way the in order to build a strong building you have
to have a solid foundation.  but that is, after all, only the beginning.

if i write a sort routine with O(n*ln n) and you write one O(n**2),
how much ``micro optimization'' is it going to take to outperform my
poorly implemented, but superior time complexity, algorithm?  if your
idea of a really swell sort algorithm is a bubble sort, no matter how
much optimizing you perform you are going to lose.

even a highly optimized bad algorithm is still a bad algorithm.

- john.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                 +--------- Cute Chocolate Quote ---------
HASA, "S" Division               | "USENET should not be confused with
UUCP:   killer!rpp386!jfh        |  something that matters, like CHOCOLATE"
DOMAIN: jfh at rpp386.uucp          |             -- with my apologizes