From: Stewart Stremler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From usenet, I found a link to
http://billharlan.com/pub/papers/A_Tirade_Against_the_Cult_of_Performance.html
I like his favorite line:
It is easier to optimize correct code than to correct optimized code.
I'm going to .sigify it, I think.
Given that his website refuses to load, I think he should have cared about
its performance a great deal more :)
Here's the problem with the idea of optimization at the end. CHanging the
code later is more expensive than changing it early. Its cheaper to fix a
bug in design than in coding, its cheaper to fix it in coding than in
testing. The same is true for optimization- a little time spent worrying
about performance early will make it a lot cheaper to achieve it than it
would be later on. By the time you get to the end and try to optimize, you
end up spending large amounts of time trying to figure out what to optimize,
then an additional large amount of time doing so. And throwing out time
already spent on the unoptimal solution. Whereas considering performance in
the planning stage requires no rework or wasted time, and doing so in the
coding stage requires much less (you're already in the mindset and familiar
witht he area of code). Yeah, you'll miss a bottleneck or 2 just like
you'll miss a bug or 2, but the end result is still a cheaper, better
product than leaving it to the end.
Gave
Gabe
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
