6 ms·

"It’s not as slow as it used to be, but it’s still pretty un-optimized. It doesn’t run “close to the metal” like C and assembly does." While everyone likes to

"It’s not as slow as it used to be, but it’s still pretty un-optimized. It doesn’t run “close to the metal” like C and assembly does." While everyone likes to have efficiency, being readable and/or easy to use sometimes trumps it. Would you really write a program like <insert large Java program here> in assembly, just because it would be faster?

pmccool 17y ago
I'd go further and say that readability and/or ease of use _often_ trumps efficiency. I/O tends to be the bottleneck at least as often as CPU, apart from anything else. I agree with the point about writing in assembly language. This rant is basically arguing for speculatively micro-optimising _every line of code_ by choosing a supposedly faster language.
- scumola 17y ago
  I'm the author of the original post. The article isn't about optimizing every line of code, it's about not being lazy and choosing a language that you might have to do a little more work in for a massive decrease in bloat and execution time. One tool isn't always the right one for every problem. Don't use a hammer to screw in a screw. Sure, the screw will go in, but with just a little more effort (using a screwdriver) the task will be done much better. It's about wasting money & resources because a programmer doesn't want to write a little extra code to manage memory or watch return codes.
  - pmccool 17y ago
    I'll put it another way. Most code isn't performance-critical. If you choose to write everything in, say, assembler, most of it will give you little or no gain. Assembler's harder to write than Java, so every line is costing you money, whether it actually runs faster or not. The _effect_ is the same as speculatively optimising every line: substantial cost, uncertain benefit, potential to introduce bugs, etc etc.
locopati 17y ago
The thing about efficiency is that efficiency from one person's perspective is not the same as efficiency from another's. It may _run_ more efficiently, but maintenance efficiency decreases and extendability efficiency increases. So, you've traded a marginal short-term gain for long-term decreases in efficiency.
scumola 17y ago
C and assembly can be written very legibly.

pmccool 17y ago

I'd go further and say that readability and/or ease of use _often_ trumps efficiency. I/O tends to be the bottleneck at least as often as CPU, apart from anything else. I agree with the point about writing in assembly language. This rant is basically arguing for speculatively micro-optimising _every line of code_ by choosing a supposedly faster language.

scumola 17y ago
I'm the author of the original post. The article isn't about optimizing every line of code, it's about not being lazy and choosing a language that you might have to do a little more work in for a massive decrease in bloat and execution time. One tool isn't always the right one for every problem. Don't use a hammer to screw in a screw. Sure, the screw will go in, but with just a little more effort (using a screwdriver) the task will be done much better. It's about wasting money & resources because a programmer doesn't want to write a little extra code to manage memory or watch return codes.
- pmccool 17y ago
  I'll put it another way. Most code isn't performance-critical. If you choose to write everything in, say, assembler, most of it will give you little or no gain. Assembler's harder to write than Java, so every line is costing you money, whether it actually runs faster or not. The _effect_ is the same as speculatively optimising every line: substantial cost, uncertain benefit, potential to introduce bugs, etc etc.

locopati 17y ago

The thing about efficiency is that efficiency from one person's perspective is not the same as efficiency from another's. It may _run_ more efficiently, but maintenance efficiency decreases and extendability efficiency increases. So, you've traded a marginal short-term gain for long-term decreases in efficiency.

scumola 17y ago

C and assembly can be written very legibly.