Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/24/09 11:04 AM, urbn wrote: But no one else gives a shit?

Who the fuck are you? Someone else very well gives a shit. I'm sorry all the fancy words are scaring you.

At 10/24/09 04:45 AM, GustTheASGuy wrote: Son, the one spewing shit is you.

Get off your high horse! Theirs nothing wrong with what I said. Theirs nothing wrong with making a suggestion or offering more information. Nothing wrong with mentioning something that someone could look into.

Your just making something out of nothing! And your younger then me son :P

At 10/24/09 11:17 AM, Jon-86 wrote: Your just making something out of nothing! And your younger then me son :P

I know. :p

Get off your high horse! Theirs nothing wrong with what I said. Theirs nothing wrong with making a suggestion or offering more information. Nothing wrong with mentioning something that someone could look into.

Yes, there was, namely that A* is not relevant. In no way. At all.
As opposed to other concepts like balanced ordered trees, queues or hash tries that might have some such chance.

You pulled it out of your ass.

At 10/24/09 11:14 AM, GustTheASGuy wrote: Who the fuck are you? Someone else very well gives a shit. I'm sorry all the fancy words are scaring you.

Seriously, you are one angry individual.

No one else mentioned it. You, and only you, decided to go on a rampage to prove Jon wrong which I see more and more of from you (not just against Jon).

Also, "fancy words are scaring me"? What? That is no argument against what I said. I took A level English last year so your "fancy words" are not scaring me. If you have no argument, admit it, don't shoot off on things completely unrelated.

Just to add, who else gave a shit? I saw no one else worrying about Jon original A* mention:

I was gonna recommend A* then I remembered that was a search algorithm.

Seeing as how he stops talking about it after that.

Unfortunately we can't all be perfect like you seem to think you are.

Pull your head out of your arse.

At 10/24/09 12:07 PM, urbn wrote: Seriously, you are one angry individual.

If I'm annoyed at anything at all, it's you for starting to whine about how I'm picking on poor poopoohead who was just keeping his daily stupidity quota.

Also, "fancy words are scaring me"? What? That is no argument against what I said.

You said nothing to require an argument against, you were just whining.

I took A level English last year so your "fancy words" are not scaring me. If you have no argument, admit it, don't shoot off on things completely unrelated.

I do have an argument, while you are, again, just whining.
I was referring to the technical nature of the discussion (which you're not contributing anything to).

Just to add, who else gave a shit?

That's because everyone else except Glaiel was also naming algorithms at random.
Be sure I wasn't the only one amused at Jon's ..slip.
Although of course, it's no longer fun if now you're just going to cry about how I'm an asshole and am shooting off from the topic, because I'm the one attacking his bullshit in exactly keeping with the topic.

At 10/24/09 12:33 PM, GustTheASGuy wrote: If I'm annoyed at anything at all, it's you for starting to whine about how I'm picking on poor poopoohead who was just keeping his daily stupidity quota.

What a completely ridiculous and immature thing to say.

You said nothing to require an argument against, you were just whining.

I said who else gave a shit. You still haven't answered the question.

I do have an argument, while you are, again, just whining.

I'm not "whining" at all. You obviously need to be knocked down a peg or two, seeing as you are so far up yourself.

I was referring to the technical nature of the discussion (which you're not contributing anything to).

And neither are you with all these "comeback" posts.

That's because everyone else except Glaiel was also naming algorithms at random.

So have a go at everyone then.

Be sure I wasn't the only one amused at Jon's ..slip.

Who, other than you, was then? You keep avoiding giving me an answer.

Although of course, it's no longer fun if now you're just going to cry about how I'm an asshole

Seriously, I think you need to grow up.

because I'm the one attacking his bullshit

You just said it yourself... "Attacking". That is exactly what your doing, which is both immature and pointless. Debate is often encouraged on here, but to paraphrase your own words "you're just whining" about Jon's post.

Yes, I am attacking. It's not immature, I'm calling someone on his bullshit.
Are you taking it as an attack on a fellow idiot or something?

If you object, why not tell me why you think Jon's mention of an unrelated algorithm is justifiable.
Otherwise, of course, I also tire of responding to your off-topic complaints. They're not comebacks, I'm waiting for you to say something worthwhile.

You want me to list people's names in order to support my view? ..Really?
You use it as an actual argument, like it's the point of your post.

Do you need me to go over what I am and am not doing? I'm not having a 'go' at everyone, I really think that way of them. If you think I'm wrong, let's talk about it.

At 10/24/09 11:37 AM, GustTheASGuy wrote: Yes, there was, namely that A* is not relevant. In no way. At all.
As opposed to other concepts like balanced ordered trees, queues or hash tries that might have some such chance.

You pulled it out of your ass.

I must have a big arse then! But I have used A* to improve a sorting algorithm. Think of a linked list where each node contained arrays of arrays. Much better to figure out how relevant those arrays are by searching them to determine what position that node should take in the linked list than compare every array values in that node to every other array values in the other nodes.

Thats something I was doing not so long ago and thats why it stuck in my head.

I honestly think your trolling now! Grow up this isn't general. No need for cheeky posts.

At 10/24/09 01:36 PM, GustTheASGuy wrote: Yes, I am attacking. It's not immature, I'm calling someone on his bullshit.

Attacking someone because you think something different is immature.

Are you taking it as an attack on a fellow idiot or something?

Neither I nor Jon are idiots.

If you object, why not tell me why you think Jon's mention of an unrelated algorithm is justifiable.

Jon saying something about A* doesn't need to be "justified" because it's not a court case, and that's not why I'm making these posts.

Otherwise, of course, I also tire of responding to your off-topic complaints. They're not comebacks, I'm waiting for you to say something worthwhile.

If I'm not saying anything worthwhile then you are posting for the sake of it. I'm trying to get you to ease up.

You want me to list people's names in order to support my view? ..Really?

I want you to prove to me someone else gave a shit. Which you still haven't.

You use it as an actual argument, like it's the point of your post.

It is when you tell me other people care.

Do you need me to go over what I am and am not doing?

What? No, I can easily see that you are just arguing for the sake of it.

I'm not having a 'go' at everyone, I really think that way of them.

No, your having a go at Jon.

You decided just to go on about how Jon mentioned A* and not how everyone was just saying algorithms at random.

If you think I'm wrong, let's talk about it.

Yet you haven't talked about anything. You've just told everyone how right you are, and how wrong anyone else is.

urbn: I want to talk about programming. Here's not a place where people talk about nothing and smile. Attacks and arguments are normal. As you don't seem to understand that and have nothing to contribute to the actual discussion, why not go away.

At 10/24/09 02:05 PM, Jon-86 wrote: I must have a big arse then!

Yep!

I honestly think your trolling now! Grow up this isn't general. No need for cheeky posts.

It's something like trolling. If you make inexplicable suggestions like mentioning A* I'm going to be anal (get it) to get you to elaborate until someone is right. But it's not being immature.

But I have used A* to improve a sorting algorithm. Think of a linked list where each node contained arrays of arrays. Much better to figure out how relevant those arrays are by searching them to determine what position that node should take in the linked list than compare every array values in that node to every other array values in the other nodes.

Okay, but I still don't see how A* comes in. It applies to graphs. If you use A* to compute some distance about the data in the arrays, and then use that distance to sort, it's not a heuristic but the actual order that you're sorting on.
Then bringing up A* here is the same as telling someone who inquires about sorting strings to learn about combinatorial parsers.

Sure Gust, sure. Attacks are completely normal when trying to decide what type of sorting best fits the situation. OP came to a decision about 20 posts ago, and everything you posted after your first post was completely unecessary.

At 10/24/09 02:41 PM, GustTheASGuy wrote: urbn: I want to talk about programming. Here's not a place where people talk about nothing and smile. Attacks and arguments are normal.

What you want, is to be right, you don't care if its programming.

As you don't seem to understand

I don't understand your logic, nor your point of view.

have nothing to contribute to the actual discussion

Maybe not, but you are just arguing, so neither do you.

You seem to be mistaking an internet forum for something more serious like a computer science lecture.

Also, you still haven't shown me who else cares about Jon being wrong.

At 10/24/09 04:05 PM, urbn wrote:

At 10/24/09 02:41 PM, GustTheASGuy wrote: urbn: I want to talk about programming. Here's not a place where people talk about nothing and smile. Attacks and arguments are normal.

What you want, is to be right, you don't care if its programming.

As you don't seem to understand

I don't understand your logic, nor your point of view.

have nothing to contribute to the actual discussion

Maybe not, but you are just arguing, so neither do you.

You seem to be mistaking an internet forum for something more serious like a computer science lecture.

Why do you say that? He knows this is a forum, why can't he choose to react the way he wants? Besides, I don't see why you're talking about cs lectures. Why would a cs lecture be more important or more serious?

At 10/24/09 04:05 PM, urbn wrote: What you want, is to be right, you don't care if its programming.
Maybe not, but you are just arguing, so neither do you.

I assure you I'm interested in the topic of programming, and not putting anyone down. I am also interested in what Jon did with A*, but he was only making excuses which I found annoying.

Also, you still haven't shown me who else cares about Jon being wrong.

It's noone you know? And noone who wants to look at you. It doesn't make a difference to what I want to say. There was an actual discussion here, which was, after all, too difficult for you to follow, with your A-level English and everything.
You're only interested in fucking with me, and not what I want to talk about, so why don't you piss off now.

At 10/24/09 04:34 PM, Toast wrote: Why do you say that? He knows this is a forum, why can't he choose to react the way he wants?

A reaction like that is unnecessary.

Besides, I don't see why you're talking about cs lectures. Why would a cs lecture be more important or more serious?

A lecture of any description is more serious than a forum post, the fact that someone mentioned something (and then stopped talking about it) shouldn't need to be analysed and critiqued just in case someone takes his word as gospel.

At 10/24/09 04:36 PM, GustTheASGuy wrote: I assure you I'm interested in the topic of programming, and not putting anyone down.

Which may have been true in the original instance.

but he was only making excuses which I found annoying.

But that is not how you responded. Apparently you are allowed to talk like that when something irritates you but I am not? I find your last several posts irritating.

It's noone you know?

So basically no one who was in this topic? Someone you talked to in RL? Someone who I could never see if they gave a shit or not? Someone you could have talked about this to without any posts being made on newgrounds?

And noone who wants to look at you.

I'm sorry, what? That is not just you venting about someone being wrong, that is just a pathetic insult. Yet again showing your immaturity. Moreover it's unlikely you have ever seen me and so you are not at all qualified to make such an assumption.

It doesn't make a difference to what I want to say.

Maybe not, but the fact that I could never have perceived this person giving a shit, makes it unlikely that it even comes into the fact that no one here gave a shit.

There was an actual discussion here

Which ended long before I posted.

which was, after all, too difficult for you to follow

It wasn't hard for me to follow, but as soon as bubble sorting was mentioned my suggestion was moot, which is why I didn't post until you started slamming Jon.

with your A-level English and everything.

This just shows your level of immaturity. My education doesn't have anything to do with this topic. I only brought it up because you said your "big words" were confusing me.

You're only interested in fucking with me

Really? I'm interested in why you think you need to be right all the time. Why did you not just say "I don't agree" or whatever? Why do you need to accompany your opinions with a persona of self-righteousness and arrogance?

and not what I want to talk about

Yet you still don't have the common courtesy to actually talk as to tell.

so why don't you piss off now.

Why? Apparently I'm wrong so surely you could just be right some more with me posting?

You are quick enough off the mark to mention someone else's failings yet are not willing to acknowledge your own.

Observe that I get only grow cockier while Jon beat around the bush. I guess I do it to coerce people to getting to it.

The discussion did not end, you dragged it off with your whining. Of course, you saved poor Jon from having to get to the point and perhaps learning something. Good job, good job.

Yes, you're not allowed to talk because you don't have anything to say about the topic. That's what I wanted to talk about. Jon did seem to give a shit because he kept answering. Though you can figure it was a matter of pride, and going against me with only pride doesn't ..work out.

If you have to quote my every sentence, I don't suppose there's any more chance you'll hear my point.

I'm aware of my faults and I track my behavior. That's how I've reached a level where I can easily call professional programmers on their mistakes. You're not going to tell me how to do things.

As you perhaps remember from our previous discussion, I'm simply direct. If you're intelligent and have something to say, you can appreciate me. On the other hand a whiny noob who doesn't care for the topic to begin with indeed only ends up wasting my time.

you're not supposed to start a flame war with gust.

If he gives wrong information in a topic, call him out on it there, but don't flame him personally.

that's how you deal with gust. He's harsh, but he's right a lot. Just be harsh back when he's wrong :P

At 10/24/09 05:57 PM, GustTheASGuy wrote: Observe that I get only grow cockier while Jon beat around the bush. I guess I do it to coerce people to getting to it.

Fine.

The discussion did not end, you dragged it off with your whining.

I'm getting tired of you saying I'm whining.

If you have to quote my every sentence, I don't suppose there's any more chance you'll hear my point.

I quote every sentence or sentences that I feel need a response (or where written in such a way as to ask for a response).

As you perhaps remember from our previous discussion, I'm simply direct.

There is a thin line between what is perceived as direct and rude / obnoxious.

If you're intelligent and have something to say, you can appreciate me.

And I mostly do, but this is not one of those times. Frankly, I think you just stepped over the line this time and it was completely unneeded.

On the other hand a whiny noob who doesn't care for the topic to begin with indeed only ends up wasting my time.

Seriously, I would take you a whole lot more seriously in this instance if you didn't keep adding immature sentences like that.

Agree to disagree, because I've had enough.

The joy of Newgrounds.

At 10/24/09 05:57 PM, GustTheASGuy wrote: Yes, you're not allowed to talk because you don't have anything to say about the topic. That's what I wanted to talk about. Jon did seem to give a shit because he kept answering. Though you can figure it was a matter of pride, and going against me with only pride doesn't ..work out.

A matter of pride? What are you talking about. You said I mentioned an algorithm because it wasn't relevant. I told you why I mentioned it.

The origional questio was "can someone reccomend a FAST sorting algorithm".

If I rewrote my post the way I was thinking then you dont have a leg to stand on. And thats what I'm going to do now. The reason I didn't as while I was about to write I figured that it wasnt neccesary here as you pointed out yourself.

At 10/22/09 02:15 PM, Jon-86 wrote: I was gonna recommend A* then I remembered that was a search algorithm and you would really only need that if you had a massive amount of data to sort and needed an intelligent sorting alrorithm to go through it.
Quicksort is quite a good general one to use. Your best bet would be to generate and extended dataset for testing with that will contain relevant data that you expect to see (if you can) and then run a few algorithms on that and time them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quicksort

At 10/24/09 02:41 PM, GustTheASGuy wrote: Okay, but I still don't see how A* comes in. It applies to graphs. If you use A* to compute some distance about the data in the arrays, and then use that distance to sort, it's not a heuristic but the actual order that you're sorting on.

Your thinking about something specific, think more abstractly, algorithms are basically just set ways to get things done. You said it applies to 'graphs' well your graph can contain anything. A tree or graph is also an abstract data structure. The best way to describe it would be using search to drive the sorting algorithm.

Say you wanted to break down a sorting task and spread it over a cluster or multi-core system. You could split the problem into chunks to be run on each processor. That would be impossible to do with and normal sorting algorithm but if you have written a program where a search algorithm moves through the data-set or graph or tree or whatever while the data is being sorted you can co-ordinate the whole thing so it actually works.

Something like this would be used in a pralell computing, a cluster for example. And I built one and was experimenting with adaptive scheduling for my honours project last year before I graduated.

Now obviously that is more than whats needed here, this is not about pride, you questioned why I mentioned something, basically being an arse about it when in actual fact you were wrong to do that.

Any questions?

I'll top your parallel processing cluster heuristic A* sorting algorithm with one of my own:

The quantum imaginary 4D parallel heuristic sweep-cache mutex sort.

It uses 4-dimensional imaginary numbers and quantum computing to preprocess all possible sorted lists in constant time then distributes the table amongst multiple processors so that they can all mutex the list and sort in sub-constant time.

It's all experimental at the moment but you can google the papers on it if you wish

At 10/25/09 08:08 PM, Glaiel-Gamer wrote: I'll top your parallel processing cluster heuristic A* sorting algorithm with one of my own:

The quantum imaginary 4D parallel heuristic sweep-cache mutex sort.

See the great thing is I can come back with the research I done and provide all the source material I based it on as well as code and test cases where my initial ideas didn't work and the few that did. But bugger it. You would probably think I was making that up as well.

I honestly don't care but I will be happy to take the opportunity even if it is from something thats been blown out of all proportion to show off the work I've done. I spent the time hammering out the project and the late nights were brutal.

Enjoy a picture of the cover of my bounded copy that I printed off. I post information not bullshite. And its a shame my current job doesn't have me working with parallel code because as complex as it is, its the future no that dual/quad/multi core processors are becoming standard.

At 10/26/09 03:56 PM, Jon-86 wrote:

I honestly don't care but I will be happy to take the opportunity even if it is from something thats been blown out of all proportion to show off the work I've done. I spent the time hammering out the project and the late nights were brutal.

I'd be very interested in reading what you wrote there if you don't mind.

At 10/22/09 02:15 PM, Jon-86 wrote: I was gonna recommend A* then I remembered that was a search algorithm.

I was gonna recommend C++, but then I remembered it was a programming language.

At 10/26/09 04:45 PM, littleMonsterGames wrote: I was gonna recommend C++, but then I remembered it was a programming language.

Oh the huge manatee.