Whilst on the Shoes news, came across this recently which looks interesting:
“Shoes-and-a-shotgun is an app for Shoes that runs a Thin web-server locally with Ryan Tomayko’s Shotgun for easy reloading.”
Whilst on the Shoes news, came across this recently which looks interesting:
“Shoes-and-a-shotgun is an app for Shoes that runs a Thin web-server locally with Ryan Tomayko’s Shotgun for easy reloading.”
It might be collectively slow progress, but progress is being made on the next version of Shoes, Policeman.
Ashbb, continues his excellent work on the Windows side of things. MinGW is now the recommended build route, which although currently a bit more buggy that the old WDK route, should make things easier in the future.
OSX was struggling. Although I am really interested in Shoes, I have no discernible OSX programming skills (you can even drop the OSX from that if you want ;-) ) and only have limited access to OSX PPC (and PPC Macs are the way of the dinosaur). So although I could build and test on OSX PPC, everyone else was on 10.6, but unable to build because of the Carbon code Shoes used. We tried the route of building as 32-Bit and got no where. Now, all of a sudden, things are looking great:
Packaging, arguably one of the desirable features of Shoes was (is) a messy situation on Policeman due to changes in Ruby 1.9, but ashbb and Cecil Coupe have made progress there.
Fingers crossed we can release Policeman soon, although we might have to release with just Shy file packaging first of all.
CommentsEllie Goulding inspired I decided to dig out my Catatonia stuff and give it another listen. It must have been awhile since I’d not a single mp3 in iTunes, having never ripped any from my CDs (of which I’ve a few).
I got hooked on Catatonia with the Way Beyond Blue album, but like Idlewild they seemed to progressively lose the shine for me with each additional album. International Velvet has perhaps the most rubbish opening song of any album ever, but it does have I Am the Mob on it which redeems everything (I could listen to that forever - oh and Don’t Need the Sunshine). Equally Cursed and Blessed is kind of a nothing album for me (Storm the Palace and Dazed, Beautiful and Bruised are alright). And Paper, Scissors, Stones, well not even the “screechy vocals” (and Cery’s voice is best like that) of Is Everybody Here on Drugs? does it for me - I like the artwork more than the album.
All that though, doesn’t detract from the how good Sweet Catatonia, Lost Cat and Bleed still are, and the good memories of the gig in Bradford - I may well have seen them more than once, but that’s the only one I can remember: Everyone stood at the end of the gig, facing the stage, waiting for them to come back on and I looked out of the window to the side and saw them wandering out of the building. So I waved, shrugged my shoulders and went to the bar.
CommentsRead this a couples of days after I saw kisskitty’s post. How odd.
Anyway, I have Captain and Hope is Important on my iPod. So “I don’t care”.
Idlewild - When I Argue I See Shapes
i feel so old.
Ha. I feel older. But: good times. Been very much on a retro trip lately. Will have to dig out these CDs as well.
Or subtitled: Why turn down a chance to completely embarrass myself on the internet?
I read this post on Binary search on the Reinvigorated Programmer blog (In trying to learn more programming, I thought it wouldn’t hurt to read some programming blogs; plus as an unexpected bonus he likes Doctor Who) and thought I’d have a crack at it. However, the rules were a bit hard for me, namely:
“NO TESTING until after you’ve decided your program is correct.”
Even with Ruby, which I’m vaguely familiar with, I knew I couldn’t possibly write even the most basic program without resorting to trying out stuff in IRB. It’s the same as simple maths (times tables, etc) and spelling for me - I make no attempt to memorise this stuff when it’s easy to use a calculator, dictionary, etc. So that’s how my programming works. I can write a vague outline of the logic required in note form, but I need to use IRB or (if in another language) break my programme into chunks to compile and test, etc.
So, an honest a first attempt as possible (with just checking things like “How do ranges work in arrays again?” in IRB (told you it was embarrassing)) would be as follows:
#Assumes a pre-sorted array
def binsearch(array, target)
m = (array.length/2).floor #round down
until array[m] == target
#Find middle value of array
m = (array.length/2).floor #round down
puts m
#Which half contains target
if array[m] > target
#delete top half
array = array[0..m]
else
#delete bottom half
array = array[m..-1]
end
end
puts m
puts target
#Do we need to know where we found it?
end
This doesn’t work, the main problem being that I didn’t understand/forgot/didn’t-think-about-it-properly how the loop would check its condition. With m being updated at the start of the loop, it’s too late - the loop has begun so it’ll carry on and never break out of a loop.
Oh well, a bad first guess. At least with that out of the way I could try again, but this time I could test as I went along.
def binsearch(array, target)
#Find middle index of array
m = (array.length/2).floor #round down
until array[m] == target
puts m
#Which half contains target
if array[m] > target
#delete top half
array = array[0..m]
else
#delete bottom half
array = array[m..-1]
end
m = (array.length/2).floor #round down
end
puts "Value found is " + array[m].to_s
puts "Target was " + target.to_s
#Do we need to know where we found it?
end
The main change is moving the update of m from top of loop to end. This got it basically working. I then decided (and I don’t think this is a requirement of the task set) to report out the index of the array where the result was found (because to me there didn’t seem to be a lot of point searching for something without knowing where it is).
def binsearch(array, target)
#Duplicate array so we have a copy of the original
orig = array.dup
#Find middle index of array
m = (array.length/2).floor #round down
#tracking index
tidx = m
until array[m] == target
puts "m= " + m.to_s
puts "tidx= " + tidx.to_s
#Which half contains target
if array[m] > target
#delete top half
array = array[0..m]
subtractidx = true
else
#delete bottom half
array = array[m+1..-1]
subtractidx = false
end
m = (array.length/2).floor
if subtractidx == true
tidx = tidx - m + 1
else
tidx = tidx + m + 1
end
end
puts "Value found is " + array[m].to_s
puts "Target was " + target.to_s
puts "Index of value is " + tidx.to_s
puts "Value at index is " + orig[tidx].to_s
end
I’d mucked up splitting the arrays and had overlapping ranges, 0..m and m..-1 so fixed that here as well. This attempt seemed to be working ok, but having accidentally seen a bit of the next post that dealt with common bugs in other people’s attempts at this problem, I knew there were things I’d not done: such as dealing with elements not in the array, etc. So that would be the next effort. Fair enough I wouldn’t have got this with my first “paper” attempt anyway, but I would have twigged pretty soon with testing (and as I said, testing is how I develop).
def binsearch(array, target)
#Duplicate array so we have a copy of the original
orig = array.dup
found = true
#Find middle index of array
m = (array.length/2).floor #round down
#tracking index
tidx = m
until array[m] == target
puts "m= " + m.to_s
puts "tidx= " + tidx.to_s
#Which half contains target
if array[m] > target
#delete top half
array = array[0..m]
subtractidx = true
else
#delete bottom half
array = array[m+1..-1]
subtractidx = false
end
m = (array.length/2).floor
if subtractidx == true
tidx = tidx - m + 1
else
tidx = tidx + m + 1
end
if array.length == 1 and array[m] != target #if not found
found = false
break
end
end
puts found
if not found
puts "Value not found"
else
puts "Value found is " + array[m].to_s
puts "Target was " + target.to_s
puts "Index of value is " + tidx.to_s
puts "Value at index is " + orig[tidx].to_s
end
end
This still wasn’t completely right though. I.e. the index was not always right.
def binsearch(array, target)
#Duplicate array so we have a copy of the original
orig = array.dup
found = true
#Find middle index of array
m = (array.length/2)-1
#tracking index
tidx = m
until array[m] == target
puts array.to_s
puts "m= " + m.to_s
puts "tidx= " + tidx.to_s
#Which half contains target
if array[m] > target
#delete top half
array = array[0..m]
subtractidx = true
else
#delete bottom half
array = array[m+1..-1]
subtractidx = false
end
m = (array.length/2)-1
if subtractidx == true
tidx = tidx - m - 1
else
tidx = tidx + m
end
if array.length == 1 and array[m] != target #if not found
found = false
break
end
end
puts found
if not found
puts "Value not found"
else
puts array.to_s
puts "m= " + m.to_s
puts "tidx= " + tidx.to_s
puts "Value found is " + array[m].to_s
puts "Target was " + target.to_s
puts "Index of value is " + tidx.to_s
puts "Value at index is " + orig[tidx].to_s
end
end
Trying to get the index correct, but still crap. I did discover though that I didn’t need the floor method to round down, as that was happening anyway (see, further embarrassment). Decided to give up figuring this (index tracking) out. Must be a simpler way. Rather than split the array up, just change the range we are looking at:
def binsearch(array, target)
#Assume search suceeds
found = true
#initial lower, upper and middle indexes
l = 0
u = array.length-1
m = (u-l)/2
until array[m] == target
#Visualise the search
puts array[l..u].to_s
puts "l= " + l.to_s
puts "m= " + m.to_s
puts "u= " + u.to_s
#Which half contains target?
if array[m] > target
u = m #Set new upper boundary
else
l = m + 1 #set new lower boundary
end
m = (u-l)/2+l #set new mid point
#Break if not found / out-of-range
if l==u and array[m] != target
found = false
break
end
end
#Visualise search
puts array[l..u].to_s
puts "l= " + l.to_s
puts "m= " + m.to_s
puts "u= " + u.to_s
if not found
puts "Value not found"
else
puts "Value found is " + array[m].to_s
puts "Target was " + target.to_s
puts "Index found at is " + m.to_s
end
end
Ok, so pretty happy with that. Seems to work ok. It’s longer than it needs to be thanks to all the puts statements, but I like seeing how it arrives at the solution. Seems to find values, return correct indexes, deal with values not in the array. But what about single element or zero element arrays (also accidentally peeked at)? Whoops no good.
e.g.
binsearch([0], 1)
binsearch([-1], 1)
binsearch([-1], 0)
all just loop continuously, and
binsearch([], 1)
throws an error.
Zero length arrays are not such a worry, easy to check for that up front (even for me!), but the single element one going into a continuous loop is a more of a concern. A crappy, but simple fix would be:
if array.length == 1
if array[0] == target
#Joy to the world
else
#Best stop things now
break
end
end
But I’m sure there is a more elegant way?
I’d like to be able to use a get out clause:
I am confident that nearly everyone who reads this blog is already familiar with the binary search algorithm
and say “Well, nope I’m not familiar”, which I’m not, but I did understand the principle of the search. Really this just harks back to school Maths (which was a while ago for me) and iterative searches, etc. “Binary Search” is just different terminology. So no excuse really - I should have been able to figure it out. Perhaps what I should have done was forget the programming language aspect and just write it down logically/mathematically. Ah well, eager beaver and that.
Guess I have a long way to go yet if I want to be a programmer.
CommentsYay! It’s almost that time again. And by hook or by crook I’m getting some film for this (even if it means my back log of 35mm film waiting another month).