4 ms·
Not really necessary in most cases. There's enough profiling tools available that can give response times in fractions of a second and in many cases you can add
by laumars 10y ago
Not really necessary in most cases. There's enough profiling tools available that can give response times in fractions of a second and in many cases you can add repetition to inflate the few processes that are still too small to measure. These will give you far more meaningful figures about the performance of your code than anecdotal evidence using a slow PC as a benchmark.
- dr_zoidberg 10y agoI agree with both of you. Once I optimized a major Python project to avoid some bad disk access patterns. Nobody noticed them because everyone was using SSDs and those patterns didn't hurt (too much) performance on those, but I was running on an HDD and I had run times of hours (vs a couple of minutes for everyone else). But my optimizations were guided by the profiler and a (more or less) correct analysis of the results.
- adrianN 10y agoDevelopers care more about performance if it's slow on their computers too.
- kochthesecond 10y agoHaha, this is true. Yet i still need to have as fast build and feedback as possible when I'm doing work.
- StillBored 10y agoWhich is one of a hundred reasons why the machine you write the code on, the machine you build it on, and the machine you test it on, should be three different machines (actually probably more than that because your test environment should be more varied than a single OS/environment).
- laumars 10y agoIf we really want to adhere to best working practices, then it should be a separate team performing the tests based on the same specifications that the developers used to write the code (ie the testing team wouldn't perform tests based on the developers specifications but rather the project owners specs to mitigate the risk of the developers misunderstanding the specs). However that requires a level of process that is either too costly, or too rigid for many IT companies to follow.