2008/3/4, Krzysztof Skrzętnicki [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi
I was playing with various versions of sorting algorithms. I know it's very
easy to create flawed benchmark and I don't claim those are good ones.
However, it really seems strange to me, that sort - library function - is
actually the
Hi
-- Zadanie 9 - merge sort
mergeSort :: Ord a = [a] - [a]
mergeSort []= []
mergeSort [x] = [x]
mergeSort xs= let(l, r) = splitAt (length xs `quot` 2) xs
in mergeSortP (mergeSort l) (mergeSort r)
splitAt is not a particularly good way to split a list,
Thanks for improved code. My point was to measure which programming patterns
are faster than the others so I can learn which ones I should use. However,
the thing that is really bad is the fact, that even oneliner qsort_i is
faster than library sort. Which is very different from what I've
2008/3/4, Krzysztof Skrzętnicki [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Thanks for improved code. My point was to measure which programming patterns
are faster than the others so I can learn which ones I should use. However,
the thing that is really bad is the fact, that even oneliner qsort_i is
faster than
I get it now, thanks. Also, I guess it is possible to find a better
algorithm for standard library sort.
Christopher Skrzętnicki
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 12:04 AM, Chaddaï Fouché [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
2008/3/4, Krzysztof Skrzętnicki [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Thanks for improved code. My point was
Hi
I was playing with various versions of sorting algorithms. I know it's very
easy to create flawed benchmark and I don't claim those are good ones.
However, it really seems strange to me, that sort - library function - is
actually the worse measured function. I can hardly belive it, and I'd
