|
|
|
| There's more than one way to do things | |
| PerlMonks |
comment on |
| ( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
|
Maybe it is worth pointing out that algorithms like Levenshtein & Longest Common Subsequence; and modules that implement them (like String::Approx) are entirely useless to genomists. They don't care about the "score"; only, is it there or not. And doing all the O(N2) or worse, work that those modules do to calculate their scores in order to derive a simple boolean answer is just way too costly. When they usually are doing 10s of thousands of (say) 50/4 matches against thousands of sequences, each containing millions of codons; using those types of fuzzy-match algorithms means runtimes measured in months or years. There are much faster ways of doing fuzzy matching when all you need is a yes/no answer. With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
I'm with torvalds on this Agile (and TDD) debunked I told'em LLVM was the way to go. But did they listen!
In reply to Re^2: Random shuffling
by BrowserUk
|
|