Binary Trees make me sick :(

#61scar the 1Posted 2/25/2013 11:52:33 AM
PTP2009 posted...
Context. Skel's talking about what they're made of, not how they perform.


Well in that case the context was lost on me, at least, because to me it seemed that what he took away from academia were that they were mostly the same. Not that they consisted of mostly the same elemental parts. My entire point was that data structures are more than just how they're stored, which seemed to be what he was implying. If that's not it, then of course I have nothing further to add.
---
Everything has an end, except for the sausage. It has two.
#62ReconditePhreakPosted 2/25/2013 12:02:15 PM
Context. Skel's talking about what they're made of, not how they perform.

No ****. The interesting thing about data structures is how they perform. His statement is only somewhat accurate if you ignore the performance characteristics.

Yet, if performance was not an issue, we would all use contiguous arrays because who cares, the performance doesn't matter.

The entire point of Data Structures is to get specific performance characteristics based upon usage patterns.

He ignored the fundamental reason we care about Data Structures in the first place.
---
Believes the individuals who report to moderators wish they had more control than they do.
#63ISDcaptain01(Topic Creator)Posted 2/25/2013 12:36:38 PM
geez, you guys are sounding like academics now...
---
lol at --> http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/user.php?=89123
#64scar the 1Posted 2/25/2013 12:43:15 PM
ISDcaptain01 posted...
geez, you guys are sounding like academics now...


So far, I am an academic, so eh
---
Everything has an end, except for the sausage. It has two.
#65PTP2009Posted 2/25/2013 12:52:18 PM
He ignored the fundamental reason we care about Data Structures in the first place.

No he didn't, he just wasn't talking about it. Calm down and stop screaming about something nobody's even talking about. Not every utterance about data structures has to be about their performance.
#66scar the 1Posted 2/25/2013 12:54:32 PM
PTP2009 posted...
He ignored the fundamental reason we care about Data Structures in the first place.

No he didn't, he just wasn't talking about it. Calm down and stop screaming about something nobody's even talking about. Not every utterance about data structures has to be about their performance.


There was, however, a perceived implication. I'm sure we could argue days and days about what someone else said, but I truly believe that the matter will get no further until Skel himself actually clarifies what he meant. :)
---
Everything has an end, except for the sausage. It has two.
#67Skel1Posted 2/25/2013 12:58:42 PM
It was the simplification of understanding that I took away from academia. Underneath the hood they're all made of the same components, in other words, there's never a reason to be scared of learning a more complicated data structure because they all boil down to the same basic components.

Data structures != the algorithms used to traverse and alter them. Data structures are an abstract bundling of nodes linked together. There are multiple algorithms to traverse a binary tree, but there is only one binary tree data structure.
---
http://patrickavella.com/ <> I'm on the intertubes
http://twitter.com/patrickavella <> http://facebook.com/patrick.avella.blog
#68scar the 1Posted 2/25/2013 1:21:59 PM
Skel1 posted...
It was the simplification of understanding that I took away from academia. Underneath the hood they're all made of the same components, in other words, there's never a reason to be scared of learning a more complicated data structure because they all boil down to the same basic components.

Data structures != the algorithms used to traverse and alter them. Data structures are an abstract bundling of nodes linked together. There are multiple algorithms to traverse a binary tree, but there is only one binary tree data structure.


I agree and I disagree.
There's a significant difference between a vanilla binary tree and a red-black binary tree, for example. Sure, both are nodes and links, but well. It feels like we're moving into a discussion of semantics, and that's not really my cup of tea.
---
Everything has an end, except for the sausage. It has two.
#69Skel1Posted 2/25/2013 1:27:45 PM
All tea is just leaves steeped in hot water.
---
http://patrickavella.com/ <> I'm on the intertubes
http://twitter.com/patrickavella <> http://facebook.com/patrick.avella.blog
#70ReconditePhreakPosted 2/25/2013 3:55:45 PM
Scar, it's best to troll PTP and be done with it. You do more damage to yourself by lending credence to anything he has to say. Context is one of those things that only exists when it appears to agree with his argument. Skels arguments need to be taken in context, but the English language gets thrown out the window when it's pointed out that Skel's statements did indeed imply the performance wasn't important.

But I'm sure it wasn't skel who said this:


Data structures != the algorithms used to traverse and alter them.

For the record Skel, I challenge you to explain the usefulness of data structures without talking about performance in any way; neither by proxy, nor implication.

I don't think you can do it.

So why do they teach Data Structures to CS students?

We all know the answer to that, and therein lies my point. The rest is just arbitrary bull****.
---
Believes the individuals who report to moderators wish they had more control than they do.