On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote: > 20 minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: >> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote: >> > That can currently get to ~20k things to sort and adjust for >> > additional entries that get added on each release, planet >> > packages, etc. >> >> Have you measured how long this takes? On my machine, the `sort()` >> method on an array of 25000 strings takes 11ms in Firefox. > > I didn't, but my worry is about older machines (and things like IE).
I think that (a) this isn't going to be a big deal for any systems, especially if you filter out the 0 scores first, and (b) that we should be optimizing for people who are or might become Racket developers, who will overwhelmingly have modern systems and browsers (including IE 9, which I bet is very fast on this). > This wouldn't be an issue if I could abort the sort when there's new > user input -- but JS being what it is, once it starts sorting I can't > stop it until it's done, which means that new input characters need to > wait for the sort. To stop the sort in the middle, use a custom comparison function, a bit of state, and an exception. > [Another option that would help is if there's a reliable (and > user-invisible) way to find out how fast things run and adjust the > delay before firing a new sort on slower machines.] There are a couple options here -- check for particular browsers (using `navigator.userAgent`), or run some test like sorting a bunch of numbers. -- sam th sa...@ccs.neu.edu _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
