From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5ff6e0c3de8331c0
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Harald Korneliussen <vintermann@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: sub-optimal code for packed boolean arrays -- bug or inherent
 limitation
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 23:31:58 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1183530718.845667.249290@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
References: <1183404856.375083.160890@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
   <1183485842.725620.199490@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
   <PGwii.192991$_c5.68933@attbi_s22>
   <1183491750.177186.154490@k29g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
   <T--dnWoX157DjxbbnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@comcast.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.184.192.82
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1183530719 20753 127.0.0.1 (4 Jul 2007 06:31:59
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 06:31:59 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <T--dnWoX157DjxbbnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@comcast.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; nb-NO;
 rv:1.8.1.4) Gecko/20070515 Firefox/2.0.0.4,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com; posting-host=213.184.192.82;
   posting-account=5vUApw0AAADF5Kx_4-L9ZPdL9lZywYoQ
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16406
Date: 2007-07-03T23:31:58-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Jul 4, 5:22 am, "Steve" <nospam_steve...@comcast.net> wrote:

> I work frequently with time intensive code where simulating more
> permutations translate to more value recovered.  These small differences in
> code generation seldom have a significant impact on the overall performance.
> Greater benefits are found by changes to algorithms or approaches to a
> problem.
>

If Alinabi went looking for a better chess playing algorithm, he'd
have to be either a seriously good SC researcher, or wasting his time.
It's well-trodden ground. Arguably, the opitimization isn't premature
either, since it seems this is very much what writing a competitive
chess program is about.