←back to thread

688 points samwho | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.351s | source
Show context
Beestie ◴[] No.45024806[source]
Late to the party but as a layperson who knows just enough about programming to be dangerous, I found the article to be enlightening.

Never assumed that reading it would turn me into an expert at it. Never heard of big O till now but find it a fascinating way to look at algorithm construction.

One more thing: if every article about everything has to be a flawless exhaustive explanation then I suppose only 13 people would even know about relativity. There is plenty of room for content that simply introduces an idea and leaves filling in the gaps to the reader's discretion.

replies(1): >>45026290 #
1. the_af ◴[] No.45026290[source]
I think the criticism here is not that the article is incomplete ("not exhaustive") but rather that it makes several fundamental mistakes and doesn't actually describe Big O. It describes a "pop culture" version of Big O, which is not Big O, but calls it Big O.

It's not useless, and a lot of care seems to have gone into it, but ultimately it's a lay person explaining something they don't firmly grasp, and making a couple of serious mistakes in the process.

I love the presentation itself though!