deleted by creator
They’re setting a variable to a function. Just use the original function. All thief does is obfuscate for literally no gain except character count.
Sounds good to me
Thief. Writing code is for chumps, and the more code you right, the more of a chump you are.
Writing code is for chumps, and the more code you right, the more of a chump you are.
So you’re the one in there wronging up my code?
It’s too late now to wright my wrongh
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
TDD
const max12 = (x, y) => { if (x === 1 && y === 2) { return 2; } else if (x === 7 && y === 4) { return 7; } else { return x; } };Mathematician 2 kinda blew my mind, kinda obvious, just can’t believe I was never taught or thought about it.
Lost me when it used Math.abs after calling math.max a their
Math.Sqrt((x-y) * (x-y))(I’ve actually seen someone use this)
I’ve been staring at it for 10 minutes and I’m still not convinced it works.
Simple, really. Abs(x-y) is the difference between the two numbers, absolute, so positive value. So, adding abs(x-y) to the smaller of the two numbers turns it into the bigger number. Plus the bigger number, now you have 2 times the bigger number
Thief no doubt
Thief gang. Why stand on shoulders of giants if you’re not using it to your advantage?
Procrastinator.
Okay, but seriously: “Thief”. Why reimplement it if it’s already available in the language?
Thief
And not feeling one byte bad about it :p
Mathematician 3
Max(x, y) = floor(ln(e^x + e^y))
so 0.3 ~= 1-ln(2)=max(1-ln(2),1-ln(2)) = floor(ln(2*e^(1-ln(2)))) = floor(ln(2)+(1-ln(2))) = 1 ?
That would bee engeneer 2, not Mathematician3 xD.
Just out of curiostity, what was you Idea behind that?
Guess only work with integers, specially for the floor function that is going to give you an integer at the end everytime.
Not my idea, learned it somewhere while doing college in an statistics class. The idea is that the exponential function grow really fast, so small difference on variables become extreme difference on the exponential, then the log function reverse the exponential, but because it grew more for the biggest variable it reverts to the max variable making the other variables the decimal part (this is why you need the floor function). I think is cool because works for any number of variables, unlike mathematician 2 who only work for 2 variables (maybe it can be generalized for more variables but I don’t think can be done).
For a min fuction it can be use ceiling(-ln(e^-x + e^-y))
to be fair it does seem to work for any two numbers where one is >1. As lim x,y–> inf ln(ex+ey) <= lim x,y --> inf ln(2 e^(max(x,y))) = max(x,y) + ln(2).
I think is cool because works for any number of variables
using the same proof as before we can see that: lim,x_i -->inf ln(sum_i/in I} e^(x_i)) <= ln(.
So it would only work for at most [base of your log, so e<3 for ln] variables.
After searching a little, I found the name of the function and it’s proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LogSumExp
thanks for looking it up:).
I do think the upper bound on that page is wrong thought. Incedentally in the article itself only the lower bound is prooven, but in its sources this paper prooves what I did in my comment before as well:
for the upper bound it has max +log(n) . (Section 2, eq 4) This lets us construct an example (see reply to your other comment) to disproove the notion about beeing able to calculate the max for many integers.
I just remembered where I learned about that function, in this course on convex optimization that unfortunately I never had the opportunity to finishing it but is really good.
I don’t have a mathematical proof, but doing some experimental tests on excel, using multiple (more than 3) numers and using negative numbers (including only negative numbers) it works perfectly every time.
Try (100,100,100,100,100,101) or 50 ones and a two, should result in 102 and 4 as a max respectively. I tried using less numbers, but the less numbers you use, the higher the values (to be exact less off a deviation(%-difference) between the values, resulting in higher numbers) have to be and wolframAlpha does not like 10^100 values so I stopped trying.
#define max(x,y) ( { __auto_type __x = (x); __auto_type __y = (y); __x > __y ? __x : __y; })GNU C. Also works with Clang. Avoids evaluating the arguments multiple times. The optimizer will convert the branch into a conditional move, if it doesn’t I’d replace the ternary with the “bit hacker 2” version.
deleted by creator
__auto_typeis a compiler builtin, not a library function. It’s not a function at all, the parentheses are for precedence & grouping.
And then your customer changes their mind. Instead of two numbers, they will now input three numbers. How easy will it be for you to change your code?
And then the customer changes their mind. Instead of three numbers, they will now input any series of numbers. How easy will it be for you to change your code? And why didn’t you already do this is the previous step?
And then the customer changes their mind. Instead of any set of numbers, they will now input numbers and text. How easy will it be to change your code?
And then the customer changes their mind. They now have no idea of what they’re sending you or if they’re even sending you anything. Nevermind the code now, you already did that in the previous step, right? How easy will it be to explain what you’re invoicing them for?
How easy will it be to explain what you’re invoicing them for?
By the hour I presume
If only you’d done the most bloated and well documented function first, you could have saved yourself the time and your client for the money.
I mean this is the kind of shit my boss would argue about. Why pay for the first attempts that didn’t work… blabla bla. He always ends up paying but it’s always such a hassle.
Engineer I guess… Thief is the objectively better enterprise programmer option but I don’t know why I always forget about it and just write a ternary ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Master Thief
const { Max: max } = Math;If thief is actually an option, then thief.
Otherwise probably procreator or engineer 😅😬
Edit: errrrr that was supposed to say “procrastinator” 😬dyac
I’m number 11.
I’m in this post and I’m offended.
