# AVL Tree **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [December 14, 2007, 9:40pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/avl-tree/123196 "2007-12-14T21:40:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![thefed](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/e47c2d/32.png) [@thefed](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/thefed)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2007, 9:40pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/avl-tree/123196/1 "2007-12-14T21:40:11Z")
Hello! I have a quick question about the AVL tree. Isn’t this a lot like the Rope quiz? When I wrote my Rope entry, I made it into a self- balancing tree like this (although I forsaked all heap properties). Hmm. Maybe I need to rewrite my Rope entry. ~ Ari English is like a pseudo-random number generator - there are a bajillion rules to it, but nobody cares. ---
**Author:** ![thefed](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/e47c2d/32.png) [@thefed](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/thefed)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2007, 10:42pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/avl-tree/123196/2 "2007-12-14T22:42:17Z")
On Dec 14, 2007 9:37 PM, thefed [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Hello! > > I have a quick question about the AVL tree. Isn’t this a lot like the > Rope quiz? When I wrote my Rope entry, I made it into a self- > balancing tree like this (although I forsaked all heap properties). > I have seen the solutions using AVL tree balancing for ropes but I > guess that the _original_ balancing algorithm is better adapted to > most applications of Ropes. But I wonder too. > > Hmm. Maybe I need to rewrite my Rope entry. > I still need to write my entry… > R. > – [http://ruby-smalltalk.blogspot.com/](http://ruby-smalltalk.blogspot.com/) * * * All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Schopenhauer (attr.) ---
**Author:** ![thefed](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/e47c2d/32.png) [@thefed](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/thefed)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2007, 10:51pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/avl-tree/123196/3 "2007-12-14T22:51:06Z")
On Dec 14, 2007, at 2:37 PM, thefed wrote: > I have a quick question about the AVL tree. Isn’t this a lot like > the Rope quiz? When I wrote my Rope entry, I made it into a self- > balancing tree like this (although I forsaked all heap properties). Some people did use AVL balancing in their ropes, but I consider the binary tree to be a more general data structure. Beyond that, this quiz is far more about the build strategy than the task itself. James Edward G. II ---
**Author:** ![thefed](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/e47c2d/32.png) [@thefed](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/thefed)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2007, 4:25pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/avl-tree/123196/4 "2007-12-15T16:25:40Z")
On Dec 15, 2007, at 8:23 AM, Rick DeNatale wrote: > > Beyond that, this quiz is far more about the build strategy than the > > task itself. > > I hope this is taken the right way, but as I think of this quiz, I’m > afraid that picking a particular data structure/algorithm like an AVL > tree isn’t the best way to do that. I’m sure I make plenty of mistakes. This could be one of them. However, when there are no submissions, you’re stuck with my ideas for better and worse. I like to try new things from time to time. I also don’t see anything wrong with TDDing an algorithm. Besides that, there should be a heck of a lot more interface work than there is AVL rotations in our tree library. James Edward G. II ---
**Author:** ![thefed](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/e47c2d/32.png) [@thefed](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/thefed)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2007, 3:26pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/avl-tree/123196/5 "2007-12-15T15:26:00Z")
On 12/14/07, James G. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > task itself. > I hope this is taken the right way, but as I think of this quiz, I’m > afraid that picking a particular data structure/algorithm like an AVL > tree isn’t the best way to do that. The ping-pong programming comes out of test driven design, which is a way to derive a design iteratively by refining external requirements. In this quiz, we have the goal of implementing a particular algorithm, which isn’t realy the same thing at all. A more general task, such as building a lookup tree, or a balanced lookup tree would probably explore the build strategy better, perhaps with the quizmaster stepping in at times to introduce one or more new requirements, but it’s too late for that. ## Just my opinion. Rick DeNatale My blog on Ruby [http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/](http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/)