From 01c0b9a6bfd794827a02f1ceed844ea9fa900955 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Renge Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2024 23:27:50 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] doc --- Assignment2/README.md | 14 +++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/Assignment2/README.md b/Assignment2/README.md index f354036..0ba8a95 100644 --- a/Assignment2/README.md +++ b/Assignment2/README.md @@ -44,7 +44,9 @@ I didn't find a way to calculate runtime in swi-prolog. But it is clearly to see | 5 | 38 | time limit exceeded | | 10 | 48 | time limit exceeded | | 15 | 29 | time limit exceeded | -| 20 | 46 | time limit exceeded | +| 20 | 46 | time limit exceeded | + +It is great to have two different mode. Though the approximate result is not as good as the exact one. But it is way faster and uses way less resource. We can switch between different mode at different case. ### AMPL | size | ans | time | @@ -52,8 +54,9 @@ I didn't find a way to calculate runtime in swi-prolog. But it is clearly to see | 5 | 38 | very fast | | 10 | 48 | very fast | | 15 | 29 | very fast | -| 20 | 46 | very fast | +| 20 | 46 | very fast | +Very fast. ## Part B ### clingo @@ -111,4 +114,9 @@ One important factor of the runtime is the max number of cut to check. If we set | 20 | 17 | very fast | | 25 | 21 | very fast | | 30 | 25 | very fast | -| 100000 | 80393 | very fast | \ No newline at end of file +| 100000 | 80393 | very fast | + +Very fast. + +## Conclusion +AMPL is the fastest implementation in part 1 and 3, much faster than the others. clingo is the clearest and the easiest way to write it but it is not that fastest one. Each language has its own pros and cons so it is hard to create a single language with all the pros but no cons. \ No newline at end of file