cm0002@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 2 days agotimeoutSortlemmy.mlimagemessage-square35fedilinkarrow-up1464arrow-down14cross-posted to: programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
arrow-up1460arrow-down1imagetimeoutSortlemmy.mlcm0002@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 2 days agomessage-square35fedilinkcross-posted to: programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
minus-squarerbn@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkarrow-up33·2 days 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-squarefilcuk@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkarrow-up35·2 days 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-up5·2 days agoBetter yet: take the square root and you get a sub-linear run time
minus-squareBlueKey@fedia.iolinkfedilinkarrow-up3·1 day agoMaybe not peak performance but heigh CPU efficency, it’s load ist mostly 0.
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…
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
Maybe not peak performance but heigh CPU efficency, it’s load ist mostly 0.