On 12/07/08 11:39, Dennis J Harrison Jr wrote:
> I don't dismiss knowing the hardware.
>
> I have (and will again I am sure) had to squeeze every last ounce of
> performance out of code. For me, there is a point where I don't see a
> real world return in rewriting functional code to make it more
> efficient. One of my customers writes testing software (Frank Cohen).
> And we tune things until they are fast enough. I appreciate the
> drive (and the motivation behind it) to make every bit of code as
> efficient as possible. So we can actually appreciate the
> responsiveness moores law should afford us. I do my part :)
>
> I wouldn't consider something that took hours to do what could be done
> in minutes; correct and well-coded.
>
> I just don't think that learning asm first (as I took your original
> email about this) should be a requirement. But, rather, a supplement
> instead. (Which you have later clarified as your view). So.... we
> agree? ;)
Maybe.
Do you consider "using the 'correct' algorithm" to be part of
testing-level tuning, or part of design?
> I do know who I will be consulting about performance issues when my
> limited knowledge of higher level math can't immediately solve the
> problem.
Not me!!!! Not since 1986 have I looked at a math book higher than
high school algebra.
-- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA How does being physically handicapped make me Differently-Abled? What different abilities do I have? ___________________ Nolug mailing list nolug@nolug.orgReceived on 12/07/08
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 12/19/08 EST