169
top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] arty@feddit.org 3 points 7 hours ago

Interesting how it had to get to 48 hours before someone pulled out a profiler

[-] Gxost@lemmy.world 36 points 20 hours ago

Nah, I was excited to read about the algorithmic change, but it turned out to be an obvious change. I would replace nested loops with a map too. The result is impressive, though.

[-] drspod@lemmy.ml 17 points 18 hours ago

Marketing departments love to make a huge deal out of this kind of thing, because they only see the big number improvement and don't really understand that this was just some dev's Wednesday afternoon.

[-] mamotromico@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 hours ago

I mean, it’s still really impressive upgrade even if technically it was a simple change, they are right to make a fuss about the change

[-] abbadon420@lemm.ee 30 points 18 hours ago

And they are right to do so. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't really matter how much time you spend on a problem. It's the result that matters. I remember a meme where a dev would place a "wait" function in a new feature. Than remove the wait call and call it a free update and get lots of praise from the customer.

[-] Bogasse@lemmy.ml 5 points 17 hours ago

Worst bugs usually hide in the most trivial causes 😭

[-] fodor@lemmy.zip 29 points 22 hours ago

How cool! This is one great point of FOSS.

[-] manxu@piefed.social 8 points 21 hours ago

we traced the issue to a 15-year-old Git function with O(N²) complexity and fixed it with an algorithmic change, reducing backup times exponentially.

I feel like there is something wrong with this sentence.

[-] _taem@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 19 hours ago

I'm not a native speaker, but would agree that it sounds imprecise. To my understanding, that's a polynomial reduction of the time (O(n^2) to O(n): quadratic to linear) and not an exponential speed-up (O(2^n) to O(n): exponential to linear). 🤷 Colloquially, "exponentially" seems to be used synonymously to "tremendously" or similar.

[-] Giooschi@lemmy.world 6 points 16 hours ago

and not an exponential speed-up (O(2^n) to O(n): exponential to linear)

Note that you can also have an exponential speed-up when going from O(n) (or O(n^2) or other polynomial complexities) to O(log n). Of course that didn't happen in this case.

[-] kureta@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 hours ago
[-] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 5 points 16 hours ago

There isn't. This is the colloquial use of "exponentially" which is very obvious from the context.

[-] drspod@lemmy.ml 1 points 14 hours ago

On a technical blog post by a software company about the details of solving an algorithmic complexity problem?

Careless, and showing that the author does not understand technical communication, where precision is of great importance.

[-] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 0 points 9 hours ago

This is fine precisely because it is a blog post. If it was a scientific paper... sure maybe they shouldn't say that. But the meaning is abundantly clear from the context. There is no ambiguity.

[-] drspod@lemmy.ml -2 points 9 hours ago

Enjoy being mediocre.

[-] drspod@lemmy.ml 8 points 18 hours ago

They make the same mistake further down the article:

However, the implementation of the command suffered from poor scalability related to reference count, creating a performance bottleneck. As repositories accumulated more references, processing time increased exponentially.

This article writer really loves bullet point lists, too. 🤨

[-] ugo@feddit.it 7 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

That’s because LLMs really like to output bullet point lists

[-] ulterno@programming.dev -1 points 9 hours ago
  • Welp, guess I am an LLM now :P
[-] Deebster@infosec.pub 11 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

Seem ok to me, both in grammar and what it's saying about the change. O(N²) to O(N) would be an exponential drop (2 down to 1, in fact).

[-] Giooschi@lemmy.world 7 points 16 hours ago

An "exponential drop" would be a drop that follow an exponential curve, but this doesn't. What you mean is a "drop in the exponent", which however doesn't sound as nice.

[-] Bogasse@lemmy.ml 5 points 17 hours ago

It's at least misleading 😛

But I have to agree that for any non-math people this would convey the right idea, whereas "quadratic improvement" would probably not mean anything 🤷

[-] Beacon@fedia.io 10 points 23 hours ago
this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2025
169 points (98.3% liked)

Programming

20694 readers
381 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev



founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS