BreakPoint
Vampire Numbers (Balaji, where are you????)
HaHa, i had seen that before i was going to start with the challenge.
It was given to me as a challenge by BALAJI to test my skills as i am a beginner in labVIEW
It was given to me as a challenge by BALAJI to test my skills as i am a beginner in labVIEW
waldemar.hersacher wrote:How would it work with LV 2009, parallel loops on multicore CPU? Altenbach I think you have the code on hands. What about a retest?
Yes, I still have all my code. Unfortunately I am pretty busy at the moment.
Somil,
This is certainly a good learning tool, but your code needs a significant makeover.
- Don't use hidden indicators as a source of local variables. None of those are needed.
- There is no need to constantly hide hidden controls. Once there are hidden, they stay that way.
- Six out of seven cases have near identical code, see if you can get away with a single instance of it.
- To index out three elements, there is no need to convert an array to a cluster and then unbundle it. Constantly swapping data structures is expensive. Index array is resizeable and does the same directly. You don't even need to wire the indices. SInce you make it back int an array later, you never have to extract individual elements anyway, right?
- None of these intermediate results (hidden arrays with local variables) are needed. All you need is six iterations, building the final array in a shift register. (you get the functionality of case 7 for free)
- "output array" is not needed, simply feed the output of stage 1 into the second loop. This create a data dependency and you no longer need the sequence structure.
- I would have never expected to see a pt-by-pt function in a math application. There are certainly better ways to do that. They are also unsuitable, because they create extra zeroes in the output array. Try to built the output in a shift regsiter and write it once at the end of the program. There is no need to update the indicator in an inner loop.
- Your code is not scaleable. Doing the same for e.g. 6 digit vampire numbers would require a significant rewriting. Try to write code can work with any number of digits (at least as supported with simple numerical types).
- You need to filter out duplicate results.
You should make the VI compatible with the template of the challenge.
Why don't you do a banchmark. This should literally take only microseconds with better code. 😉 (My code was able to get all vampire numbers (thousands!) with up to 8 digits in a faster time.)
