Re: Unsigned integers
- From: Danny <NOSPAMFORdaniel_ahorn@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 16:48:01 +0200
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 07:54:27 -0700
Name: "Bob Butler" <tiredofit@xxxxxxxxxx>
>"Danny" <NOSPAMFORdaniel_ahorn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:52ch8194jqga5pml24b4bkteikh71benpq@xxxxxxx
>> Which is exactly why I didn't say "best" but "most efficient". ;o)
>>
>> You know, in terms of storage one that requires least amount of
>> memory, in terms of speed one that runs the fastest. The two usually
>> go together.
>
>IME the two are more likely to be mutually exclusive
Not in this case because we're talking about data. The less data there
is, the more efficient it will be.
It is mutually exclusive in case of code, however. There, indeed, the
choice is usually between size and speed. For example, tight code is
less efficient (albeit more elegant, of course) than "unrolled loops'
which by comparison run faster.
Danny
(You guessed it! Remove NOSPAMFOR before emailing.)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Unsigned integers
- From: Duane Bozarth
- Re: Unsigned integers
- From: Bob Butler
- Re: Unsigned integers
- References:
- Unsigned integers
- From: Danny
- Re: Unsigned integers
- From: Duane Bozarth
- Re: Unsigned integers
- From: Danny
- Re: Unsigned integers
- From: Bob Butler
- Unsigned integers
- Prev by Date: Re: Unsigned integers
- Next by Date: Re: Unsigned integers
- Previous by thread: Re: Unsigned integers
- Next by thread: Re: Unsigned integers
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|