3 ms·

...with bubble sort. Might want to mention that in the title.

by TheLoneWolfling 12y ago

Kiro 12y ago
I don't see how the algorithm is relevant here.
- mackwic 12y ago
  It quite easy in fact: before going asynchronous, people should learn datastructures and algorithms adapted to what they want to do. It's wiser to limit the work your CPU has to do rather than hide this work behind high-level non-deterministic structures like WebWorkers like no work is done. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that WebWorker are useless. I just say that really costly operations are rare if you know your DS and complexities. Oh, by the way, you usually don't have to implement theses datastructures yourself. Even javascripts have [collections](http://www.collectionsjs.com/ http://www.collectionsjs.com/).
- TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
  Because with a half-decent sorting algorithm you wouldn't need to use multithreading for this? On my machine with that particular 50k length array it takes 7ms if I just do "a.sort();".
  - mackwic 12y ago
    Hey ! Bubble sort can be a descent algorithm when you know when and how to use it ! After all, it is the fastest sorting algorithm when your collection is already sorted ! Moreover, it has very nice properties which make it suitable for a lot of concurrent operations.
    - TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
      Insertion sort is faster for already-sorted data. (Note: I am not advocating to use insertion sort!)
afshinmeh 12y ago
Is it important?
- TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
  Yes. When advocating using a new tech (or "new", as the case may be), one should find an example where the new tech is truly the best solution. (And if there is no such example, then I wonder why you are advocating it) If they had used a half-decent sorting algorithm (say... sort(), which on the array they give runs an absurdly short length of time) they wouldn't need to use web workers for this. There are all sorts of things where web workers are useful and better than alternatives. This is not one of them.

...with bubble sort. Might want to mention that in the title.

Kiro 12y ago

I don't see how the algorithm is relevant here.

mackwic 12y ago
It quite easy in fact: before going asynchronous, people should learn datastructures and algorithms adapted to what they want to do. It's wiser to limit the work your CPU has to do rather than hide this work behind high-level non-deterministic structures like WebWorkers like no work is done. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that WebWorker are useless. I just say that really costly operations are rare if you know your DS and complexities. Oh, by the way, you usually don't have to implement theses datastructures yourself. Even javascripts have [collections](http://www.collectionsjs.com/ http://www.collectionsjs.com/).
TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
Because with a half-decent sorting algorithm you wouldn't need to use multithreading for this? On my machine with that particular 50k length array it takes 7ms if I just do "a.sort();".
- mackwic 12y ago
  Hey ! Bubble sort can be a descent algorithm when you know when and how to use it ! After all, it is the fastest sorting algorithm when your collection is already sorted ! Moreover, it has very nice properties which make it suitable for a lot of concurrent operations.
  - TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
    Insertion sort is faster for already-sorted data. (Note: I am not advocating to use insertion sort!)

afshinmeh 12y ago

Is it important?

TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
Yes. When advocating using a new tech (or "new", as the case may be), one should find an example where the new tech is truly the best solution. (And if there is no such example, then I wonder why you are advocating it) If they had used a half-decent sorting algorithm (say... sort(), which on the array they give runs an absurdly short length of time) they wouldn't need to use web workers for this. There are all sorts of things where web workers are useful and better than alternatives. This is not one of them.