8 ms·
...Maybe not quite as fast, but fast enough for me... Given how fast computers are these days, the powerful standard libraries high level languages give you an
by rikthevik 17y ago
...Maybe not quite as fast, but fast enough for me...
Given how fast computers are these days, the powerful standard libraries high level languages give you and the fact that bugs per line is constant regardless of language - high level languages start to look pretty good. Programs don't need to be fast as possible, they just need to be fast enough.
- ssp 17y ago"Computers these days" have always been fast; if that were an argument for anything, performance would not matter at all anymore. If computing power is fungible, then a 10% performance improvement translates into a 10% saving on the hardware budget. This matters for data centers, and it matters for embedded systems where using a slightly cheaper component in a million devices might mean saving a million dollars. I think the fallacy of the fast, modern computer comes from the fact that PCs are not very fungible at all; they come in discrete performance steps. And since your application is pretty unlikely to be the most demanding one, it will probably run just fine even without much optimization.
- igouy 17y ago> the fact that bugs per line is constant regardless of language "fact"? More like an observation that must be re-tested and re-established with each change in tooling. Is Java bugs per line the same for IntelliJ IDEA and Emacs? (And of course let's remember - bugs per line when? During development? In product?)
- steveklabnik 17y agoThat is what the study said. It holds constant across languages and tools. Now, if I could find a link for you, that'd be awesome. My google-fu is weak today.