Subj : Re: Reverse words in a string (Another Interview question)
To   : comp.programming
From : Gerry Quinn
Date : Sat Oct 01 2005 01:39 pm

In article <dhk1fe$akt$1@joe.rice.edu>, joe@burgershack.com says...
> Gerry Quinn wrote:

> > Surely a linked list is a perfectly good alternative?
> > 
> > If the interviewer then wants you to do it inline, that is fine, but a 
> > different problem from the one he originally set, which was to reverse 
> > the words.

> A linked list will certainly do the job, but unlike a stack, it will
> also do other jobs than simple sequence reversal.  As such, linked list
> code is not ideally minimalist or idiomatic -- an obvious natural
> mapping of problem space to solution space.

For me it's an obvious mapping, and perfectly idiomatic.  It's not 
minimalist, but I do not accept minimalism as a valid criterion in 
general.

> Choosing the most appropriate data structure is like choosing the right
> programming language: it's the most direct path to the desired goal.
> When you do this, other developers don't really even have to read your
> code to know what you're doing.  The design is apparent from the tool
> you chose; you're using a stack to retain state that will be processed
> in reverse order.
> 
> I'm proposing a solution that I think is better, not the only correct one.

I'm using a linked list to contain words that will be output in reverse 
order (or any other order I choose) after processing, which can be in 
any order I choose.  (There is no reason why processing should be in 
reverse order just because that is the desired output.)

Using the minimal algorithm is like carefully choosing a shopping bag 
no larger than will be needed for the goods you intend to buy.  It is a 
waste of time that yields no significant benefits and reduces 
flexibility.

- Gerry Quinn

.