[#10209] Market for XML Web stuff — Matt Sergeant <matt@...>

I'm trying to get a handle on what the size of the market for AxKit would be

15 messages 2001/02/01

[#10238] RFC: RubyVM (long) — Robert Feldt <feldt@...>

Hi,

20 messages 2001/02/01
[#10364] Re: RFC: RubyVM (long) — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2001/02/05

[#10708] Suggestion for threading model — Stephen White <spwhite@...>

I've been playing around with multi-threading. I notice that there are

11 messages 2001/02/11

[#10853] Re: RubyChangeRequest #U002: new proper name for Hash#indexes, Array#indexes — "Mike Wilson" <wmwilson01@...>

10 messages 2001/02/14

[#11037] to_s and << — "Brent Rowland" <tarod@...>

list = [1, 2.3, 'four', false]

15 messages 2001/02/18

[#11094] Re: Summary: RCR #U002 - proper new name fo r indexes — Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela@...>

> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

12 messages 2001/02/19

[#11131] Re: Summary: RCR #U002 - proper new name fo r indexes — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneik@...>

Robert Feldt wrote:

10 messages 2001/02/19

[#11251] Programming Ruby is now online — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

36 messages 2001/02/21

[#11469] XML-RPC and KDE — schuerig@... (Michael Schuerig)

23 messages 2001/02/24
[#11490] Re: XML-RPC and KDE — schuerig@... (Michael Schuerig) 2001/02/24

Michael Neumann <neumann@s-direktnet.de> wrote:

[#11491] Negative Reviews for Ruby and Programming Ruby — Jim Freeze <jim@...> 2001/02/24

Hi all:

[#11633] RCR: shortcut for instance variable initialization — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

13 messages 2001/02/26

[#11652] RE: RCR: shortcut for instance variable initialization — Michael Davis <mdavis@...>

I like it!

14 messages 2001/02/27

[#11700] Starting Once Again — Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...>

OK, I'm starting again with Ruby. I'm just assuming that I've

31 messages 2001/02/27
[#11712] RE: Starting Once Again — "Aaron Hinni" <aaron@...> 2001/02/27

> 2. So far I think running under TextPad will be better than running

[#11726] Re: Starting Once Again — Aleksi Niemel<zak@...> 2001/02/28

On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Aaron Hinni wrote:

[ruby-talk:11205] Re: Generators (was: RCR Summary 02/16/01 -suspend)

From: "Christoph Rippel" <crippel@...>
Date: 2001-02-21 02:00:00 UTC
List: ruby-talk #11205
> From: Mathieu Bouchard
> Subject: [ruby-talk:11181] Re: Generators (was: RCR Summary 02/16/01
> -suspend)
[...]

> Despite a regular functional implementation of fib(n) being in O(fib(n)) 
> time (that is, O(1.618**n) time), the implementation with generators is in
> O(n) time like yours [*]. The only difference is callcc (which I think is
> quite slow, but I don't know how it's implemented).
> 
> I don't see how fib wouldn't be a good example. The existence of an
> O(fib(n)) solution is irrelevant. You can design a slow solution to every
> problem possible.

I was curious how the ``callcc'' solution (much more interesting
IMO) compares with a straightforward ``suspendable'' solution.

Fib is fine a example - but in my loop I reinitialized to ``a = b = 1''
after 30 iterations (you have to alter the callcc solution a bit for 
this) to get a more meaningful comparison.

[..]
Christoph

In This Thread

Prev Next