On Oct 19, 2004, at 7:17 AM, Gavin Kistner wrote:
> On Oct 18, 2004, at 9:24 AM, Martin Ankerl wrote:
>>> Martinus:  4.32 seconds
>>>     Gavin:  8.61 seconds
>>>    Warren: 12.81 seconds
>>>    Dennis: 80.49 seconds
>>
>> Now that's interesting, because my emphasis was to make the program as
>> simple as possible, I really did not care about any performance
>> issues.
>
> I am guessing that it has to do with your reduced number of classes 
> and method calls, taking a more procedural approach to the problem.

Er, that, and the fact that (unlike me) you didn't waste time with a 
recursive approach which attempted to re-visit various vertices 
repeatedly.
--
(-, /\ \/ / /\/