Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Alexandre Julliard <julli...@winehq.org> > wrote: > >> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <l...@lkcl.net> writes: >> >> >>> i would imagine that inefficient is the _last_ thing on the list of >>> priorities. "technically correctly fulfilling the semantics" i would >>> imagine would be the highest priority. >>> >>> "efficient" and "nice" can always be done later, yes? >>> >> No, in many cases efficiency needs to be taken into account in the >> design phase. You can't just add it later. >> > > sure you can. by redesigning. > > > Since I deal with that on a daily basis, I'll step in. A great design is one that does EVERYTHING right the first time. What you are proposing goes counter to this and is unacceptable. Do it right the first time and you don't have to revisit, revisit and revisit some more.
In other words: AJ is right, you are just looking for the easy way out. Not a good idea and others end up cleaning up when the users start whining. James McKenzie
