Timeline for Finding nth lowest value without any Math max or min methods
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2019 at 23:02 | vote | accept | DreamVision2017 | ||
| Mar 19, 2019 at 21:46 | comment | added | morbusg | -1 from that?! Gosh this place is hostile. +1 from me for that very same statement; the whole "computation time over developer time" was a thing of the 80s to my understanding, but these days we don't reuse variables for different things, nor use GOTO's, etc. | |
| Mar 19, 2019 at 14:07 | history | edited | RoToRa | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 70 characters in body
|
| Mar 19, 2019 at 14:05 | comment | added | RoToRa | I didn't phrase that well. Code doesn't need to be most efficient. One should prefer readable code over perfectly optimized code. I'm speaking of cases where inefficient, but readable code takes 1.1 seconds instead of 1 second to run. If it were not for the bugs, the original idea of sorting the complete array would be IMHO an acceptable solution. It may not the most efficient solution, but in 99% of all use cases a more efficient solution would be overkill. However the OP did imply that this would be a more efficient solution than to "just" look for the top 2 lowest values, which it isn't. | |
| Mar 19, 2019 at 11:26 | comment | added | Blindman67 | I disagree with your opening statement. Good code MUST FIRST be efficient. Ask the end users, the many who pay for the code to be written, which is better, code that takes 10seconds or code that takes 1second to run. -1 | |
| Mar 19, 2019 at 8:59 | history | answered | RoToRa | CC BY-SA 4.0 |