this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2025
440 points (99.5% liked)

Programmer Humor

26875 readers
374 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Feyter@programming.dev
anzo@programming.dev
BurningTurtle@programming.dev
pylapp@programming.dev
440
Who cares about time complexity (lemmy.world)
submitted 4 days ago by qaz@lemmy.world to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
68 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rooroo@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

9 is IX though, and that works.

6 works fine, as it replaces the first set of 5 I with V and then there’s nothing to replace.

I’d written it in typescript for all it’s worth; go ahead and try it yourself :)

[–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Does 9 really work? Wouldn't it be:

IIIIIIIII
-> VIIII
-> VIV
[–] rooroo@feddit.org 2 points 2 days ago

I like your questions about this and they all seem fair but I kinda wanna encourage you to go ahead and write it yourself; it’s a fun way to convert into Roman numerals that both is and isn’t intuitive at the same time.

[–] rooroo@feddit.org 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

No, cause you do the replacement from large to small, I.e. you’d first check for 10 I to replace with X (none found); then replace 9 with IX (check), then check for 5, 4 and so on.

[–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The original doesn't have an extra check for 9 and it works for Roman->Indioarabic because it's:

IX
->IVV
->IIIIV
->IIIIIIIII

But the other way around, you need an extra step for 9. That's where our misunderstanding comes from.

[–] rooroo@feddit.org 2 points 2 days ago

Ohhh haha that makes sense. Fun!

[–] rooroo@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago

I noticed my “and so on” is literally a noop here so yeah.