Newest at the top
| 2024-11-07 18:43:18 +0100 | alp | (~alp@2001:861:e3d6:8f80:6393:3939:65f3:74c5) |
| 2024-11-07 18:41:54 +0100 | CoolMa7 | (~CoolMa7@ip5f5b8957.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |
| 2024-11-07 18:40:08 +0100 | CoolMa7_ | (~CoolMa7@128.90.175.5) CoolMa7 |
| 2024-11-07 18:37:32 +0100 | CoolMa7 | (~CoolMa7@ip5f5b8957.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de) CoolMa7 |
| 2024-11-07 18:37:12 +0100 | housemate | (~housemate@146.70.66.228) (Quit: "I saw it in a tiktok video and thought that it was the most smartest answer ever." ~ AnonOps Radio [some time some place] | I AM THE DERIVATIVE I AM GOING TANGENT TO THE CURVE!) |
| 2024-11-07 18:33:41 +0100 | Smiles | (uid551636@id-551636.lymington.irccloud.com) (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity) |
| 2024-11-07 18:32:26 +0100 | tzh | (~tzh@c-76-115-131-146.hsd1.or.comcast.net) |
| 2024-11-07 18:18:17 +0100 | peterbecich | (~Thunderbi@syn-047-229-123-186.res.spectrum.com) peterbecich |
| 2024-11-07 18:17:21 +0100 | toch | (~toch@user/toch) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) |
| 2024-11-07 18:16:01 +0100 | machinedgod | (~machinedg@d108-173-18-100.abhsia.telus.net) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) |
| 2024-11-07 18:15:19 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@77.242.116.146) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2024-11-07 18:14:48 +0100 | ljdarj | (~Thunderbi@user/ljdarj) ljdarj |
| 2024-11-07 18:11:26 +0100 | <monochrom> | or rather, using caching to speed up hashing |
| 2024-11-07 18:11:09 +0100 | toch | (~toch@user/toch) toch |
| 2024-11-07 18:11:05 +0100 | <monochrom> | Haha the irony in using caching for hashing. |
| 2024-11-07 18:06:08 +0100 | housemate | (~housemate@146.70.66.228) housemate |
| 2024-11-07 18:06:08 +0100 | housemate_ | (~housemate@146.70.66.228) (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) |
| 2024-11-07 17:59:07 +0100 | housemate_ | (~housemate@146.70.66.228) housemate |
| 2024-11-07 17:58:43 +0100 | housemate_ | (~housemate@146.70.66.228) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2024-11-07 17:53:18 +0100 | <merijn> | Like the ability to query "the key closest to X", easy queries for lowest/highest key value, stable and predictable traversal orders (containers guarantees traversal order from least to greatest key/element) |
| 2024-11-07 17:52:46 +0100 | tromp | (~textual@92-110-219-57.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl) |
| 2024-11-07 17:52:25 +0100 | <merijn> | Not to mention that tree based maps like containers come with a bunch of other niceties you don't get with hashmaps |
| 2024-11-07 17:51:51 +0100 | <merijn> | Most people really overthink it and there's also a tendency of "I'm used to python/javascript/ruby/whatevr and they use hashmaps for everything, so they must be the best thing you can use!" |
| 2024-11-07 17:51:14 +0100 | <merijn> | Which makes sense, since O(log n) scales insanely well with input size |
| 2024-11-07 17:50:49 +0100 | <merijn> | Inst: I've used the Haskell map's with 10 thousands of entries in relatively tight loops and the performance was just fine |
| 2024-11-07 17:50:16 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@77.242.116.146) merijn |
| 2024-11-07 17:50:01 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@77.242.116.146) (Quit: Reconnecting) |
| 2024-11-07 17:48:03 +0100 | <c_wraith> | Ah. Well. Solving the halting problem is also trivial is you just start with a table of all the answers. |
| 2024-11-07 17:46:57 +0100 | <c_wraith> | The funniest counter-argument I heard to "hashing isn't O(1)" was "it is if you cache it." |
| 2024-11-07 17:46:21 +0100 | <Inst> | like, seq is more efficient than list asymptotically, but benchmarks show that in many practical case list pulls ahead |
| 2024-11-07 17:46:04 +0100 | <Inst> | tbh at O(ln n) and below, I suspect you can easily have performance dominated by constant factors? |
| 2024-11-07 17:45:50 +0100 | JamesMowery43 | (~JamesMowe@ip68-228-212-232.ph.ph.cox.net) JamesMowery |
| 2024-11-07 17:44:28 +0100 | <merijn> | Most people handwave/ignore the cost of computing a hash of the key, handwave the possibility of complexity degradation due to collisions |
| 2024-11-07 17:42:28 +0100 | <merijn> | Meanwhile hashmaps are O(1) (with sufficient handwaving) average case and O(n) worst case complexity. And you need a pretty decent amount of memory bloat to avoid hitting the O(n) case |
| 2024-11-07 17:41:35 +0100 | <merijn> | Inst: Haskell's immutable maps use storage linear in number of elements and are O(log n) average *AND* worst case complexity |
| 2024-11-07 17:41:02 +0100 | <merijn> | Inst: Bit late, but there's also the issue of 1) memory complexity and 2) avg case vs worst case complexity |
| 2024-11-07 17:40:05 +0100 | Digitteknohippie | Digit |
| 2024-11-07 17:39:51 +0100 | <merijn> | hashtables are the most overrated datastructure IMHO |
| 2024-11-07 17:38:16 +0100 | JamesMowery43 | (~JamesMowe@ip98-167-207-182.ph.ph.cox.net) (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) |
| 2024-11-07 17:38:15 +0100 | alexherbo2 | (~alexherbo@2a02-8440-3318-5646-f579-461f-1ad7-34d7.rev.sfr.net) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2024-11-07 17:37:05 +0100 | housemate | (~housemate@146.70.66.228) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) |
| 2024-11-07 17:34:58 +0100 | housemate_ | (~housemate@146.70.66.228) housemate |
| 2024-11-07 17:24:33 +0100 | poscat | (~poscat@user/poscat) poscat |
| 2024-11-07 17:23:59 +0100 | poscat0x04 | (~poscat@user/poscat) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2024-11-07 17:20:32 +0100 | Digit | (~user@user/digit) (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) |
| 2024-11-07 17:19:43 +0100 | Digitteknohippie | (~user@user/digit) Digit |
| 2024-11-07 17:18:05 +0100 | housemate | (~housemate@146.70.66.228) housemate |
| 2024-11-07 17:17:59 +0100 | misterfish | (~misterfis@31-161-39-137.biz.kpn.net) (Ping timeout: 255 seconds) |
| 2024-11-07 17:17:28 +0100 | notzmv | (~daniel@user/notzmv) notzmv |
| 2024-11-07 17:16:36 +0100 | housemate_ | (~housemate@146.70.66.228) (Quit: "I saw it in a tiktok video and thought that it was the most smartest answer ever." ~ AnonOps Radio [some time some place] | I AM THE DERIVATIVE I AM GOING TANGENT TO THE CURVE!) |