4 ms·
``Every now and then the code used "fancy" Perl features. Converting those parts was 10x, 100x, and sometimes up to 1000x slower.'' That is why, when I run an
by luckydude 10y ago
``Every now and then the code used "fancy" Perl features. Converting those parts was 10x, 100x, and sometimes up to 1000x slower.''
That is why, when I run an engineering team, I constantly push back against "clever" or "fancy" stuff. Engineers love that stuff, eat it up. I get it, it's fun. But when they move on to something else and a mere mortal has to maintain, fix, or convert it, the cost of that clever stuff becomes apparent. I've had to be that mere mortal and I can assure you it is a miserable experience.
I've often thought that one of the most useful things about me is that I'm not smart enough to be that clever, I like simple, obvious code. It's a little bit of a lie, I'm smart enough, sort of, to be that clever but it's a lot more work. And I know that any code that is more than 6 months, doesn't matter if I wrote it or someone else wrote it, it always feels like someone else wrote it. And man, do I love it when that someone else went for straightforward rather than clever.
- pekk 10y agoThe corollary is that entire languages and libraries dedicated to doing things cleverly, even if they are technically usable, are often bad choices. But unless you can point at benchmarks, nobody will listen to you, and the better choice may even be described as blub.