n00m wrote: > It also timed out:( Could be. Yet you did write: > It's incredibly fast! I never intended to submit this program for competition. The contest ranks in speed order, and there is no way Python can compete with truly-compiled languages on such low-level code. I'd bet money that the algorithm I used (coded in C) can run with the winners. I also think I'd wager that the Python version outright trumps them on code size. My first version bombed for the zero-length sequence. That was a mistake, sorry, but it may not be one of their test-cases. I wonder how many of the accepted entries would perform properly. -- --Bryan
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4