Building on yesterday's rant (https://devrant.com/rants/3110183/), after sleeping on it I realized that using groups was completely non-necessary, so I got rid of them and got a much more efficient (and faster) function:

Also, I've got these in a repo: https://github.com/chabad360/...

@iiii it's regular fibo, I'm just exploring different methods of doing it.

I need an array, because fibo is O(log n), so I need a way to store all the numbers that need to be fibo'd.

@iiii I'm just having fun mate, yes it's inefficient, I know that. But I'm just trying to stretch my brains to come up with different methods to calculate fibo. I don't think there's anything wrong with a little programming exercise.

@iiii why, it does exactly what the recursive fibo does, just it dumps the whole operation on the heap instead.

There's nothing really special about it, and to my understanding (haven't tested it yet), at large numbers, it could preform just as well (if not better) as the recursive fibo.

@iiii mind explaining a bit? I think I get where your going, but I'm a bit to busy to figure it out rn.

@iiii
"Trampoline" 😋

@iiii
I don't like a lot terms. Industry do what it do. 😆

@SortOfTested that rant of yours was actually the inspiration for this little experiment.

@pseudonim
Sometimes it's fun to noodle on rube goldberg machines.

Who am I kidding, it's always fun.