Georg Wrede wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I am sorry, at the first two reads I did not understand your
algorithm. I noticed that it is more complicated than the canonical one
Canonical one. Righhhhhtttttt......
From the outset I thought that you did have a solution in mind. And I
thought that the pause of a couple of days before any seroious attemnts
only meant that everybody else understood it, too. So, nobody wanted to
spend 5 days inventing something which would only be dismissed "because
Knuth did it better 50 years ago".
[snip]
I don't even know how to start answering this and particularly what
follows (30% of I can't even figure where it comes from and where it
goes), but allow me to retort with just a few short and clear points.
1. You were not set up. I did have a solution in mind, but it's not from
Knuth or some other classic. I didn't actually find it anywhere (which
is why I consider the problem interesting to discuss in this group), but
it's rather simple and clear because five people in this group came to
it independently.
2. I'm not sure - are you reproaching me I didn't sit down to understand
your algorithm (and pardon me, it wasn't the clearest exposition there
is and it still has more than a few kinks to be ironed out)? And are you
comparing the situation with your professor etc.? And am I supposed to
thank you for not making a biggie out of it? Well your instructor was
supposed to read your work, and I am not by any stretch of imagination.
That was rather inappropriate.
3. If you are alleging that if somebody implemented your algorithm, it
would run faster than BCS's, you are simply mistaken. Yours simply does
more work than necessary, and no amount of buts and ifs can cover for that.
Andrei
