02-12-2023, 05:58 PM
Oh that's devastating news B. I was looking at your Recursion examples and a Quick Sort routine. They are very fast. So here is my For...NEXT test code
TN stands for Target Number. This is similar to the actual algorythm I am presently using but really stripped down. If you run this code it will take the better part of the day to complete and that's not counting the time the actual algorythm branches off to do some calculations. I have been trying to duplicate this depth of nesting (at least 6 deep) with a recursive algorythm. I am having no luck nesting recursive calls (I don't think Quick Sort is nesting it's recursive calls but rather I think you would call that Stacking recursive calls). So I'm trying to stack them but still fumbling on the code. Impressed with the speed of Quick Sort, I thought it's recursive approach would be a lot faster than For..Next code I'm using. I good idea gone bad, as has been pointed out.
Code: (Select All)
For TNa = 1 To 44
For TNb = 2 To 45
For TNc = 3 To 46
For TNd = 4 To 47
For TNe = 5 To 48
For TNf = 6 To 49
Print TNa; TNb; TNc; TNd; TNe; TNf
Next
Next
Next
Next
Next
NextTN stands for Target Number. This is similar to the actual algorythm I am presently using but really stripped down. If you run this code it will take the better part of the day to complete and that's not counting the time the actual algorythm branches off to do some calculations. I have been trying to duplicate this depth of nesting (at least 6 deep) with a recursive algorythm. I am having no luck nesting recursive calls (I don't think Quick Sort is nesting it's recursive calls but rather I think you would call that Stacking recursive calls). So I'm trying to stack them but still fumbling on the code. Impressed with the speed of Quick Sort, I thought it's recursive approach would be a lot faster than For..Next code I'm using. I good idea gone bad, as has been pointed out.