Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:15795 comp.std.c:785
Path: utzoo!attcan!cmtl01!matrox!uvm-gen!uunet!lll-winken!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!megatest!djones
From: djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.std.c
Subject: Re: BIT Counting: C programming problem
Message-ID: <1238@goofy.megatest.UUCP>
Date: 25 Jan 89 22:12:04 GMT
References: <8398@dasys1.UUCP>
Organization: Megatest Corporation, San Jose, Ca
Lines: 23

From article <8398@dasys1.UUCP>, by ejablow@dasys1.UUCP (Eric Robert Jablow):
> In article <35329@think.UUCP> barmar@kulla.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin) writes:
>>I haven't seen anyone so far suggest the far end of the time/space
>>trade-off: have a 64K table, with each element N containing the number
>>of bits in N 

....

> That is a ridiculous idea.  For microscopic savings in speed, you
> waste 63K of space.

...

As I type this letter, I am using what is, by today's standards, an
excellent, but rather commonplace workstation: a Sun3/60.  It has 8Meg
of RAM and a virtual memory of about 42Meg, if I remember correctly.
So 64K is less than two tenths of one percent of the virtual memory.

Always bear in mind that "ridiculous" depends on the point of view of
the ridiculer.


		Dave J.