Path: news.mathworks.com!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!postnews.google.com!r2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: LudovicoVan <julio@diegidio.name>
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.graphics.algorithms,comp.dsp,comp.soft-sys.matlab,comp.compression
Subject: Re: "Complex Algorithm R&D: Harder Than Many Think" article published
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:38:11 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <c2df7d4b-8b46-486d-af56-c295af6d7719@r2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
References: <8afea0cf-6821-4457-9e5e-f7c073cee38e@l35g2000pra.googlegroups.com> 
	<4A65CD22.9080403@gmail.com> <89766b45-df9d-4009-b829-1bb81629f3a2@26g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> 
	<h44qgb$pi$1@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu> <5a58e89e-6b7a-4e6b-8b0e-a76a5d4e0478@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> 
	<h44pe7$8po$1@news.albasani.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 89.195.147.48
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1248194291 14628 127.0.0.1 (21 Jul 2009 16:38:11 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:38:11 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: r2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com; posting-host=89.195.147.48; 
	posting-account=F3H0JAgAAADcYVukktnHx7hFG5stjWse
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; 
	Trident/4.0; MathPlayer 2.10d; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 
	5.0; .NET CLR 3.5.21022; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: news.mathworks.com sci.logic:231556 comp.graphics.algorithms:175338 comp.dsp:260124 comp.soft-sys.matlab:557204 comp.compression:100006


On 21 July, 17:12, Jan Burse <janbu...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> LudovicoVan schrieb:
>
> > Am I missing something?
>
> Yes,
> Probably you think algorithmic complexity has to do with
> FORTRAN LINPACK efficiency.

I don't: what are you missing?

> But look at the following: Define the necessary structure
> where euclides GCD algorithm works mathematically, you
> end up in some axioms. <snipped irrelevant code example>

As I've said above (you snipped it): OO methodologies can help lower
the complexity of the software structure (to a certain extent): there
is no specific connection to algorithms complexity, though.

> But cutting an OO framework is Art.

Sure, I agree on that, given that it is by far the most
*intrinsically* complex software methodology, as well as the most
remote to the conceptual problem domain (i.e., the most lower level in
the technical sense), ever. In an analogy (not to be taken too
strictly), OO stands to the broad panorama of software methodologies
and techniques as assembler stands to the programming languages.

-LV