Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Keep It Simple, Stupid

Re: Up for Critique

by tadman (Prior)
on Mar 22, 2002 at 21:07 UTC ( #153648=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Up for Critique

Here's just something that came to mind. Instead of using your massive if structure in ParseAChroms, you could try doing something a lot simpler, such as declaring what you're looking for in a sort of table:
my %acrhom_prefix = ( BAC => '(.*)\s*', LENGTH => '(.*)\s*', OSME => '(.*)\s*', CHR_START => '(.*)\s*', BAC_START => '(.*)\s*', BAC_END => '(.*)\s*', ORIENTATION => '(\w)\w*\s*', );
Now, instead of using an "array" of variables, use a hash. This simplifies things massively:
sub ParseAChroms { my ($achromref) = @_; my (%value); foreach (@$achromref) { my ($prefix, $data) = /^(\S+):\s+(.*)/; if (my $pattern = $achrom_prefix{$prefix}) { ($value{lc $prefix}) = $data =~ /^$pattern$/; } } return @data{qw[ type ac_id length chr_num chr_start chr_end bac_start bac_end orient]}; }
Now, I've just typed this into the editor here, so this is really just theory and not tested, but the idea is that this can be applied to a few other areas where you do the same thing.

Further, instead of passing arguments back and forth in a particular fixed order, why not return a HASH-ref? This makes it easy to add new data to the return value without breaking other functions which use it.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Up for Critique
by biograd (Friar) on Mar 23, 2002 at 06:43 UTC
    There were a couple reasons I went for the wholesome all-array of them is I have just never been as comfortable with hashes as I have been with arrays. This is no excuse, of course, and I've been meaning to use them more. I just always see the array algorithm first. (Can you tell I'm new???) Second, I'd read in Mastering Algorithms with Perl about the speed of arrays over hashes, so I felt justified. (Webadept noted this below too.)

    However, I can see the utility of hashes from many of these examples, yours and others below, so I know I'll have to bite this bullet soon. Thanks for the example, tested or not. :)


      Speed vs. Maintainability/Scalability

      If the difference in speed is small, i say drop the arrays and use hashes ... but i am lazy. I have this adversion to something called 'typing'. ;)

      But, arrays are not always faster than hashes. It all depends upon context - if you have to scan the entire array to find something, a hash implementation will probably be faster. But if you have to iterate over all elements - then an array is probably the better choice. Consider the following Benchmark code:

      use strict; use Benchmark; my %h; my @a = ('a'..'zzz'); @h{@a} = (1) x @a; timethese('-10', { find_array => sub { return (grep /^ccc$/, @a) ? 1 : 0 }, find_hash => sub { return $h{'ccc'} }, iterate_array => sub { do {} for @a }, iterate_hash => sub { do {} for keys %h }, }); __END__ yields on my dual proc 400 linux box: (YMWV) find_array: 10 wallclock secs (10.11usr + 0.04sys = 10.15 CPU) @ 45.62/s (n=463) find_hash: 13 wallclock secs (11.41usr + 0.07sys = 11.48 CPU) @ 1183591.72/s (n=1 +3587633) iterate_array: 11 wallclock secs (10.98usr + 0.09sys = 11.07 CPU) @ 70.28/s (n=778) iterate_hash: 11 wallclock secs (10.78usr + 0.05sys = 10.83 CPU) @ 16.53/s (n=179)


      (the triplet paradiddle with high-hat)

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://153648]
and all is quiet...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others chilling in the Monastery: (3)
As of 2017-03-26 04:53 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    Should Pluto Get Its Planethood Back?

    Results (313 votes). Check out past polls.