Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

DYNAMIC PROGRAMMING VS. MEMOIZATION

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-18 4:28

IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE WE HAD THIS THREAD!

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-18 7:12

for a reason

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-18 10:24

Dynamic languages are unsafe, you insensitive clod

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-18 10:30

>>3
i was going to tell you to get back to /slashdot/, but then i wondered why the thread had been bumped to the top if both of you saged.
then i realised IHBT

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-18 10:43

back to [g]/spoiler/[/g]

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-18 10:44

>>5
Don't drink and bbcode

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-18 10:46

>>5
Back to BBCode FAILURE, please.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-18 10:59

No, really. Memoization is much simpler to implement, I don't see why there's all this focus on dynamic programming.
I never bother to convert the problem to dynamic programming form unless I'm afraid I'll blow my stack. I wondered if anyone actually prefer DP representations, and why.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-18 17:41

>>8
Because dynamic programming usually provides an explicit eviction policy? If you has a memoized algorithm that is O(n2) in function calls, then it would eat O(n2) in space, while with dynamic programming you can have O(n) in space quite often. For fibs it's O(n) vs O(1), by the way. Also, dynamic programming makes it easier to think about and to debug the program. Sure, you have to invest some time up front thinking about what you're going to do, but it pays back thousandfold when you do not discover that you were wrong all along, and what's more, you do not spend hours discovering that, trying to delay the inevitable and rethink your program in terms of dynamic programming.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-18 17:43

And now we can discuss DYNAMICALLY TYPED LANGUAGES vs IMPLICITLY MEMOIZING LANGUAGES.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-18 18:08

>>10
If I can define a memoization facility in a handful of lines and make a function memoizable in one line (or zero lines if I define the function differently to be memoized by default), that's about as good as implicitly memoized languages, without the drawbacks of having to force a purely functional aproach on all the functions that don't need memoization on by default(which use mutable state in one form or another).

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-18 22:53

>>11
wat

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-18 23:37

>>12
Typical non-satori programmer.
Note how it has no idea what the post says.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-19 11:34

>>13
Yeah, "memoization", the functional paradigm and mutable state. Really deep shit right there, it took me two months using the computer dictionary to understand you.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-19 13:57

>>14
"memoization"
Why the quotes, faggot?

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-19 19:37

>>15
You come from /b/. Now please return there.

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List