Difference between revisions of "Talk:LSL Function Style/Celierra Darling"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Gigs Taggart (talk | contribs) (complexity.) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Complexity is irrelevant. LSL functions delay seemingly random amounts, and functions you'd think would be CPU intensive like MD5Sum ... aren't. There's so much crap in terms of energy and delay and other random throttling on top of the function that a complexity rating would be meaningless, and potentially lag-inducing. Someone might avoid an n^2 function and implement their own nlogn version in LSL, which would undoutably be very much slower and cause more lag. Built-ins are always better than implementing the algorithm in LSL itself. [[User:Gigs Taggart|Gigs Taggart]] 21:51, 23 February 2007 (PST) | Complexity is irrelevant. LSL functions delay seemingly random amounts, and functions you'd think would be CPU intensive like MD5Sum ... aren't. There's so much crap in terms of energy and delay and other random throttling on top of the function that a complexity rating would be meaningless, and potentially lag-inducing. Someone might avoid an n^2 function and implement their own nlogn version in LSL, which would undoutably be very much slower and cause more lag. Built-ins are always better than implementing the algorithm in LSL itself. [[User:Gigs Taggart|Gigs Taggart]] 21:51, 23 February 2007 (PST) | ||
:List & string functions tend to have a high complexities as all the parameters have to be copied onto the stack. [[User:Strife Onizuka|Strife Onizuka]] 09:25, 24 February 2007 (PST) | |||
Revision as of 10:25, 24 February 2007
Complexity is irrelevant. LSL functions delay seemingly random amounts, and functions you'd think would be CPU intensive like MD5Sum ... aren't. There's so much crap in terms of energy and delay and other random throttling on top of the function that a complexity rating would be meaningless, and potentially lag-inducing. Someone might avoid an n^2 function and implement their own nlogn version in LSL, which would undoutably be very much slower and cause more lag. Built-ins are always better than implementing the algorithm in LSL itself. Gigs Taggart 21:51, 23 February 2007 (PST)
- List & string functions tend to have a high complexities as all the parameters have to be copied onto the stack. Strife Onizuka 09:25, 24 February 2007 (PST)