cm0002@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 1 day agotimeoutSortlemmy.mlimagemessage-square32fedilinkarrow-up1435arrow-down14cross-posted to: programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
arrow-up1431arrow-down1imagetimeoutSortlemmy.mlcm0002@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 1 day agomessage-square32fedilinkcross-posted to: programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
minus-squarerbn@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkarrow-up32·15 hours agoTo reduce the chance of errors, you can multiply all numbers by a factor of 10, 100, 1000, 10000, … for the timeout. The higher the factor, the lower the chances of an incorrect result. And as no one asked about performance…
minus-squareBlueKey@fedia.iolinkfedilinkarrow-up2·6 hours agoMaybe not peak performance but heigh CPU efficency, it’s load ist mostly 0.
minus-squarefilcuk@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkarrow-up34·15 hours agoAs added benefit, you can then opyimise the code by dividing the number by 2, making it twice as fast. Think of the savings!
minus-squarelugal@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up4·9 hours agoBetter yet: take the square root and you get a sub-linear run time
To reduce the chance of errors, you can multiply all numbers by a factor of 10, 100, 1000, 10000, … for the timeout. The higher the factor, the lower the chances of an incorrect result. And as no one asked about performance…
Maybe not peak performance but heigh CPU efficency, it’s load ist mostly 0.
As added benefit, you can then opyimise the code by dividing the number by 2, making it twice as fast. Think of the savings!
Better yet: take the square root and you get a sub-linear run time