Talk:Binary GCD algorithm: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:18, 1 January 2007

Revision as of 21:19, 1 January 2007

Line 94:

I've removed the ML implementation, because it teaches more about ML than about the algorithm. I have my doubts about the value of the assembly version, but I can't really assess it as I can't read it. IMHO, the C implementation ''is'' important because it exemplifies the use of bitwise operations for efficiency. [[User:Qwertyus|Qwertyus]] 22:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

:I think you did the right thing. I just restored the C and ARM implementations after [[User:ArvindNArvindn]] blanked them, for these reasons: IMHO, C isn't important for showing bitwise operations; it should be obvious that you'd use bitwise ops where appropriate. But the C implementation is easier to read than the English algorithm at the moment, so it needs to stay at least until there's an appropriate substitute ([[pseudocode]]? Knuth-style algorithm description?). IMHO, the ARM implementation is really enlightening, because it shows the real size and speed benefit of the algorithm in a way that no higher-level language's compiler even approaches. (In particular, it totally stomps the C implementation.) Without ''some'' hand-optimized assembly implementation, the advantage of binary GCD over Euclid is not obvious, IMHO. --[[User:Quuxplusone|Quuxplusone]] 21:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)