On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 21:53:51 +0000
Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> At 21:44 06/03/2004, stephan mantler wrote:
> >Also, to get a bit closer to the original topic. I can't remember
> >where I
> >read this (DDJ probably), but apparently programmers who have a deep
> >understanding of computer architecture through low level programming
> >also produce "better" code in high level languages. My interpretation
> >is that they are simply feeding the compiler a better foundation to
> >work with.
>
> Having seen quite a lot of undergraduate "computer science" students
> over past decade, I can certainly support that interpretation. Nobody
> quite understands why hash tables are not a perfect data structure
> until they've tried to implement one in assembly language. (And,
> after performing such a task, few people will use hash tables without
> asking themselves, at least for a moment, if there might be a cheaper
> solution to the problem at hand.)
>
> Colin Percival
Not sure what you mean here... surely it's no easier to implement (say)
an AVL tree or a red-black tree in assembly?
In fact, I'd think a hash function would often be a good candidate for
hand-coded assembly - if you want to play "Beat the Compiler" :)
-Chris
_______________________________________________
freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-chat-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"