cm0002@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 2 days agotimeoutSortlemmy.mlimagemessage-square35fedilinkarrow-up1466arrow-down14
arrow-up1462arrow-down1imagetimeoutSortlemmy.mlcm0002@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 2 days agomessage-square35fedilink
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-up3·2 days 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.