Do you use algorithms in real life?

Do you use algorithms in real life?

Attached: CLRS.jpg (420x475, 49K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=S0RtR2Yllzk
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I used a sorting algorithm to pick my wife's ring (realized afterwards I didn't need to, I could have done a tournament bracket to find the best)

i divided and conquered your mothers ass cheeks

Attached: 1561945495333.png (600x1003, 519K)

Rarely. Maybe 1-2% of the time I'll create an algorithmic solution for producing some kind of result. E.g. I had one line of text that used numerals, letters, and roman numerals to represent structure of a text.

>1. Intro A. This is a sub-bullet. B. This is another sub-bullet. 2. Body I. First point. II. Second point. C. Conclusion

Into:

1. Intro
A. This is a sub-bullet.
B. This is another sub-bullet.
2. Body
I. First point.
II. Second point.
3. Conclusion


Transforming a single line of input into a multi-line output which indentations required keeping a set of regex rules and adding each line to a stack and then pushing it off once we went back up a level.

Point is that you don't do this shit too often. But algorithmic thinking is super important because that's what your employer hires you for. They hire you for the 10% of work that is challenging, not the 90% of "plug and play X library into Y framework" kind of shit that you can hire any code monkey to do. OP, don't underestimate the value of this shit. It will help you so much later in your life.

I use
#include

When I don't want to explain what my code does I just call it "an algorithm".

You use them in real life all the time, passing job interviews is 'real life' bud, whether you like it or not. You have to use them constantly on the job hunt.

#include

I use algorithms to pick up chix

Yes for work.

#include
#include

done.
studying algorithms is a waste of time now.

they're all done for you already.

Nope. Most libraries and built in data structures handle it themselves.
>inb4 triggered SFaggots mass reply saying i'm an retard

Only people who work on real problems do. Problems with real performance constraints where you have not alternatives besides using the correct data-structures and algorithms. These people often roll their own to have stronger performance guarantees for their specific use case.
Most developers only memorise enough for coding interviews. They then coast along writing inefficient code in inefficient languages and "scaling" to compensate for their general ignorance of algorithmic complexity and computer architecture.

There’s no real difference between an algorithm and a program, so yeah I use algorithms every day.

Yes, last week I've injected a trojan algorithm into your mom's backdoor mainframe

>studying algorithms is a waste of time now
You still need at least roughly know how they work in order to choose the correct one.
Obviously in production code it's nonsense to reinvent the wheel every time you want to use something standardized (although reinventing the wheel is fun).

yeah i try to sort my life every single day. And the complexity is (N!) every fucking time.

Is it possible to understand algorithms when you've forgotten most high school math?

if black guy aged between 10 and 45 spotted
avoid

every single day

This book has three types of algorithms, greedy, divide and conquer, and dynamic programming. You only need to know this shit to pass memecode interviews. Computer programming has scaled through horizontal scaling. It is much more efficient to get shit done in a language that does things with lists and easy syntax than it is to autistically give a shit about using some min-heap written in assembly. Only when you have massive amounts of data have I actually had to focus on algorithms because at that scale N^2 vs 2^n means thousands of years of runtime.

I am at my job right now. Working on a graphics application where I have a root level diagram, can draw as many diagrams as needed on the root level diagram, and as many nested diagrams on each diagram as needed. I also need to draw relationships between diagrams linking them. When you need to draw a relationship between diagrams, which diagram does the actual relationship get drawn on? The least common ancestor between the two diagrams you are drawing the relationship between. All the nested diagrams are just a tree. Learn your data structures and algos.

Lowest common ancestor* I always want to say least lmao.

Enjoy missing the cache and having four servers do the same work as one.

2^n will quickly blow up user.

no just needed to know every single fucking algorithm for my whiteboard interview once i learned every fucking bubble sort insertion sort selection sort BST niggerlicious algorithm and got the job i have not used any of those garbage algos ever. i just use a helper utility library to do everything for me.

Cooking recipes are algorithms for food.

Attached: 1561243567835.jpg (1544x1080, 637K)

dying in algorithms is dying in real life

like this??

Attached: 1.jpg (1366x768, 190K)

user...

yes, but intro algo books like pic related are useless

what

you gotta have the groove, ya know

Attached: dd7f33f22f6eb76d9b707adb293c3c00e239b2d56d9366d573dd23a39503b0fd.jpg (454x280, 35K)

Hey where the fuck did I put my glasses?

some, mostly cache-oblivious variants and dynamic programming

Almost never. CS "education" is a joke.

What is useful instead?

>Only when you have massive amounts of data have I actually had to focus on algorithms
You know that's fucking BS unless the "massive amount of data" is input of length 10 and more.

Recently, in my job, a problem showed up that I can only describe as the rucksack problem, but you had to check if the items you chose actually fit in there together. In other words: It's a NP-complete problem where checking a solution is also a NP-complete problem, tasty.

It had to be reasonably fast (couple hours) for several thousand items. Through some heuristic magic I could get something like O(n2), but I think it's still too slow.

I use them but I never implement them

Are you sure checking the volumes is NPC?

what do you cook anom?

I haven't found sufficient book
just a hundreds of random papers

No, I use bloatware

Yup. Exactly like that.

Post some interesting papers on algorithms

>he doesn't know embedded systems exist

Attached: giph3.gif (300x191, 1.32M)

Not only the volumes, the overall geometry too. The rucksack and the "items" can have almost arbitrary geometry... Not only NPC but one of the hardest in practice

Oh right I was thinking all object are spheres for some dumb reason.

actually main memory access is about x100 slower, so it's probably more than x4 servers

depends on what you're working on.

at home i work on a new programming language (not a syntax meme language, actual new stuff).
in that domain there are some useful algorithms like graph coloring, bin packing, equation solvers, knapsack, and probably more that i didnt run into yet.

algoexpert.io

When is it NOT appropriate to use an algorithm

Based turingposter

imagine paying for this instead of buying comprehensive algobook written by actual experts

imagine being born in 1970 and still use books to self teach instead of video lectures.

used one last night while fucking your mom

They're beautiful. That's all I care about at this point.

youtube.com/watch?v=S0RtR2Yllzk

Go to reddit if you want to look for any excuse to blog about inane shit

Interestingly most of life can be seen from a computers perspective, like recursion, NLP, etc.

>knows what goes on in reddit
go back there why don't you