Message from JavaScript discussions

May 2017

— I knew that uniques list was going to be a pain in the butt, haha

— 

I mean, you can deduce what's in the set without knowing a lot of information, but when you go to maintain the thing it just eats the CPU alive

— This one works

— I think

— Still the same:
AssertionError: has returns falsy for values in the set

— Ok, so one of these is failing:

charArray.length !== 0
&& listLength !== 0

&& (charArray[0] in list)

&& (charArray.length in list[charArray[0]])

Message permanent page

— Nope. I accidentally commented out ciritcal code, hang on

— Hmm, ok, so the costs associated with maintaining the uniques list also apply to maintaining a count of all items in the set

Message permanent page

— Hmm

— To know whether or not to increment, you need to know if a string existed before or not... a check which I removed which made it fast

Message permanent page

— Adding the check back in, this one:

if (!list[charArray[0]][charArray.length].includes(string)) {

makes it go like 14200ms slower

Message permanent page

— Lel