2 ms·
Portability shouldn't be under-estimated. An ex-colleague had the opportunity to re-write a bad implementation. After gathering the requirements, he had a very
by xirium 19y ago
Portability shouldn't be under-estimated. An ex-colleague had the opportunity to re-write a bad implementation. After gathering the requirements, he had a very nice specification which was portable, lightweight and extensible. Then management wanted to add direct SQL access because old systems had this feature and that made them fast. My ex-colleague didn't want to budge on this issue because the direct access was the reason for the re-write. Management wouldn't budge on the issue either because they were former techies and that's how stuff was implemented on less powerful hardware. Anyhow, the fellow got frustrated and quit. That's how he became an ex-colleague.
- bdfh42 19y agoWithout getting down into the details of any one such case - my inclination would always be to go with the solution that could run on "less powerful hardware". That sort of efficiency has a way of proving to be just that - efficient. Efficient always trumps cool - unless you come from the developer generation where efficient is the only cool.