home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu.tar
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu
/
icon
/
newsgrp
/
group98a.txt
/
000071_icon-group-sender _Fri Feb 27 17:03:48 1998.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
2000-09-20
|
3KB
Return-Path: <icon-group-sender>
Received: from kingfisher.CS.Arizona.EDU (kingfisher.CS.Arizona.EDU [192.12.69.239])
by baskerville.CS.Arizona.EDU (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA01284
for <icon-group-addresses@baskerville.CS.Arizona.EDU>; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 17:03:47 -0700 (MST)
Received: by kingfisher.CS.Arizona.EDU (5.65v4.0/1.1.8.2/08Nov94-0446PM)
id AA01261; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 17:03:46 -0700
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 23:39:29 +0300 (MEST)
From: Ehud Lamm <mslamm@mscc.huji.ac.il>
To: gep2@computek.net
Cc: icon-group@optima.CS.Arizona.EDU
Subject: Re: icon questions
In-Reply-To: <199802271848.MAA12819@axp.cmpu.net>
Message-Id: <Pine.A32.3.91.980227233411.26902B-100000@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: icon-group-errors@optima.CS.Arizona.EDU
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1647
On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 gep2@computek.net wrote:
> While for certain types of compute-intensive applications large amounts of data
> conversions might be an issue, much of the time nowadays (and for large classes
> of applications areas) these minor conversions are simply unimportant from an
> overall perspective.
>
> In the time it might take a programmer to conceive and implement a solution
> minimizing or eliminating one conversion, the CPU to be used could probably
> perform millions of such conversions. And the CPU costs a *great* deal less per
> hour than most (especially, good) programmers do!! :-)
>
As one who manages programmers, I heartly agree that programmer time is
what really costs you. Not only are programmers expensive, it so happens
that if they are wasted doing something useless, they are not programming
the next project you have for them.
However, this is no reason to produce sloppy code... In the majority of
the cases I see of sloppy/slow/unelegant code, the reason isn't that the
solution was really cheaper in man-hours. It means simply that the man is
not a great programmer.
In some cases (for example onetime scripts, higly clever algorithms etc.)
dealling with all the low level stuff (such as type conversions) is a
waste of time.
But even in such cases, the compiler should be able to optimize most of
the trivial performence problems. Unnneded (obvious) conversions are an
example.
The sad thing about optimization, is that it is never a replacement for a
good programmer, and a good algotrithm.
These are still what really count.
Ehud Lamm mslamm@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il