Daniel Martin wrote:
> Daniel Martin <martin / snowplow.org> writes:
> 
>> Having now changed to that method, (change one letter and recalculate)
>> I'm now getting sub-minute times reasonably frequently.  I'm still not
>> getting anywhere near the times quoted, but I'm going to try some
>> other optimizations to see what I can get.
> 
> Indeed:
> $ time ruby /cygdrive/c/Temp/sallowsgram2.rb
> 30607
> 
> Daniel Martin's sallowsgram program produced a sentence with eight
> 'a's, one 'b', three 'c's, five 'd's, thirty-eight 'e's, eight 'f's,
> seven 'g's, ten 'h's, si xteen 'i's, one 'j', one 'k', four 'l's, four
> 'm's, twenty-two 'n's, fourteen 'o's, three 'p's, one 'q', thirteen
> 'r's, twenty-nine 's's, twenty-five 't's, five 'u's, seven 'v's, eight
> 'w's, two 'x's, five 'y's, and one 'z'.
> 
> real    0m7.685s
> user    0m7.468s
> sys     0m0.046s

These numbers don't say much. My algorithm:

With srand(1):
Time: 19.703s

With srand(2):
Time: 3.36s

With srand(3):
Time: 0.781s

but of course it looks much better than hours.
We will know more tomorrow :)

I would be interested in a version without random, but i don't
have much time until tomorrow night.

cheers

Simon