3 ms·
I came to say this. The reality is your programmers should instead have a low-level understanding of what their code does, and how it performs. They should th
by MrFoof 16y ago
I came to say this.
The reality is your programmers should instead have a low-level understanding of what their code does, and how it performs. They should then be using profilers and monitoring tools to ensure it's behaving inline with their expectations. One of my strengths is always being able to give a rough estimate as to how long a task should take before I've written it. The only surprise usually is if I find ways to make it even faster than I assumed was possible, by finding clever techniques to use.
- slantyyz 16y agoI agree with you. I would add that in addition to having that low-level understanding, they should also care about what their code does and how it performs. That's where it tends to break down for me. For a lot of people in McProgramming jobs, they don't care, and rely on Moore's law to handle the rest, or mark it off as technical debt that can be paid off at some unknown time in the future (and that time never seems to arrive).