3 ms·
I wish people would stop talking about "fast" and instead talk about "efficient".
by cbsmith 11y ago
I wish people would stop talking about "fast" and instead talk about "efficient".
- taneq 11y agoI think it's actually the opposite. The important thing is a short response time to the user - whether that's achieved by reducing the number of things you do, or by doing them more efficiently, is kind of moot.
- cbsmith 11y agoLanguages don't really dictate response times to the user.
- gp7 11y agoBattery life.
- taneq 11y agoDefinitely a big priority but still a secondary one. Your app won't affect battery life if they've uninstalled because it's laggy.
- majewsky 11y ago> whether that's achieved by reducing the number of things you do, or by doing them more efficiently Is there any way to do stuff more efficiently instead of doing less things (i.e. doing it in less steps)? Optimizing is always about trimming out the fat.
- taneq 11y agoDepends on what you're defining as "things". In terms of base instructions? No, all you can do is do less things. (Edit: Although even here, you can do different things to make the overall process cheaper - multiply by the inverse instead of dividing, replace a sin() calculation with a lookup, etc.) In terms of intermediate goals? If you have to process 500 objects, you can either find a way to skip some of the objects ('reduce the number of things you do') or you can make processing an object as fast as possible ('doing them more efficiently').