am I missing something?

this was a lot of words that sum up to "I heard that new algorithm exists but spent zero effort actually evaluating it"

WoodenChair 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

No, I don't think you're missing anything. He never answered the title of the post ("Faster Than Dijkstra?"). Instead he went on a huge tangent about his experience writing software for routers and is dismissive of the algorithm because the router problem space he was working in did not deal with a node count high enough to warrant the need for a more complex algorithm. Dijkstra's algorithm is used for problem spaces with far higher number of nodes than he mentions... basically an article that talks about some kind of interesting things but doesn't say much about its central question.

▲

moffkalast 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What I'm missing is certainly what the hell the algorithm even is and what is its complexity. This guy just rambles about old switches.

▲

Jtsummers 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> What I'm missing is certainly what the hell the algorithm even is and what is its complexity.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2504.17033 - Linked from the second sentence of the submission, not hard to track down. And the complexity (by which I presume you mean algorithmic complexity) is stated in the submission and in the PDF linked by the submission and that I just shared with you.

	▲	moffkalast 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I did eventually find that yes, after sifting through the rest of the useless links, the quantamagazine article that says jack shit, the link to the ACM symposium call for submissions (lmao). Like come on, why label that "underlying research"? And all of that was wasted time since it seems that this just isn't at all applicable to A* heuristics the way Dijkstra's is. It's only an improvement in a very specific case.