From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 08:25:09 -0600
On Aug 02, 2006, at 11:05 UTC, Theodore H. Smith wrote:
The thing I don't understand that no one mentioned, not even the
article, is that fast code is usually maintainable code and code
that's quicker to write.
That's not mentioned because, in general, it is patently untrue.
Quite the opposite: speed-optimised code is usually longer, more
complex, and far more obtuse than unoptimised code.
Nope.
Bloat, aka features, is well known for slowing down stuff. And it is
more complex to make.
For example, why write a regex parser class, when all you really
wanted was a character set searcher?
The character set searcher is simpler, and faster. And it can be used
for 80% of the cases that you might use a regex.
Why make your code do all sorts of awkward tricks with encodings,
(including but not limited to auto-convert on append), when you can
just assume all your data is UTF-8? Once again you get simpler and
faster code.
Code that's short, clean, and efficient doesn't count as optimised
code; that's just good code. We all write that way whenever we can.
Apparantly not :(
"all"? That's a wild statement, and it's not even "most".
I suppose you've never heard of copy/paste coders. People who copy/
paste stuff instead of refactoring.
But serious optimization will require much more complex tricks,
like loop reordering for data locality, changing to a more complex
(but efficient) algorithm, etc.
Those can help.
--
http://elfdata.com/plugin/
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
