On Wednesday, 25 January 2017 at 14:18:15 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 01/25/2017 12:58 AM, TheGag96 wrote:
On Monday, 23 January 2017 at 13:18:57 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 1/23/17 5:44 AM, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
If, instead of increasing its size by 100%, we increase it
by a smaller
percentage of its previous size, we still maintain the
amortized O(1)
cost (with a multiplier that might be a little higher, but
see the trade
off). On the other hand, we can now reuse memory.
Heh, I have a talk about it. The limit is the golden cut,
1.6180339887498948482... The proof is fun. Anything larger
prevents
you from reusing previously used space. -- Andrei
Andrei, could you link this talk? Thanks!
Not public. -- Andrei
Have you done measurements on the matter? Because I'm not sold on
the idea. To me at this point this is just a theoretical
observation. There are also arguments indicating it is less
useful. Any numbers on how it affects e.g. memory usage?
Jens
