4 ms·
The claim was he did this mostly while others weren't in the office. If you assume they work a straight 8 hours (and why would they at crunch time) that leaves
by RogerL 12y ago
The claim was he did this mostly while others weren't in the office. If you assume they work a straight 8 hours (and why would they at crunch time) that leaves 14hrs/day to eat/sleep/work. 10/5 isn't so unreasonable approximation
But hey, another way to look at it. 150,000/30 = 5000 lines/day. At 16 hrs/day, that is 312.5 lines/hour, or 5 lines/minute non-stop.
Not killing myself, and leaving the typos in that wouldn't affect compilation, I generated the code below in 36 seconds; I knew what I was going to program ahead of time - there was no thinking involved. I honestly could have typed faster, but I also didn't want to type faster than I could sustain for 16 hours nonstop. I haven't had my coffee yet, so that is a factor.
So that is right at the target rate. I don't think I could maintain that 16/7 for real problem. I'm going to have to stop to think, to look up things, to make mistakes, to write tests, to document. Unless we assume I am perfect, I'm going to have to spend time debugging. This is for a stupid Euclidian distance function, whereas the claim was it was difficult, critical code. And the claim is not 16/7, it is "before/after" office hours.
import math
def distance(x,y):
""" compute striaght line distance between x and y"""
return math.sqrt(x**2 + y**2)
- hawkice 12y agoI agree with your conclusion. Worth adding this doesn't even find the two dimension distance between two points, it finds a hypotenuse length using the Pythagorean theorem and doesn't accept two points as parameters (unless they are on a number line, and in that case math.abs(x - y) would be the correct code).