Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
Most of the code is written with a "get it to work - NOW" philoshophy, and as such there is a lot of potential for improvement and polish, not least when it comes to performance. I am aware of this, so there is really no need to benchmark it against established scientific libraries quite yet.
I wish more of software were written with this attitude. Too many a promising project is abandoned because it is not "proper", "comprehensive", "neat", "polished", "cool", "impressive", "performant", "unique", "impressive", "trail-blazing", ... And the only one who loses is US. WE lose.
This is tantamount to quenching creativity, the very property that differentiates us from the aboriginals. But observe: not because they'd be inferior, but simply because such a big part of their existence is consumed by the very acts of finding food and shelter, that we take for granted, while we have the time to indulge in quests of remote rewards.
The difference between "the Nike philosophy" (just do it), and doing it "the day AFTER tomorrow, after proper design and deliberation", is not the same as between "Bill Gates' get it out now, who cares how crappy", and "wait 'till it's perfect".
