3 ms·
> it's also important to always keep an eye out for openly wasteful code. No, that's the point. It's really not. If your "openly wasteful code" does its job we
by davedx 7y ago
> it's also important to always keep an eye out for openly wasteful code.
No, that's the point. It's really not. If your "openly wasteful code" does its job well and is readable and maintainable, it DOES NOT MATTER that it is "wasteful".
If, on the other hand, the wasteful code causes your program to execute in 60 minutes instead of 10 seconds every time you run it, then it does matter and you should optimize it.
Why is this such a difficult concept?
- kllrnohj 7y agoIf you're trying to use Knuth's quote from 1974 as your justification for that concept then you've misunderstood his argument and should read the full thing, not the single phrase. This article is not advocating premature optimization as Knuth was discussing nor does the article's advice result in the evil that Knuth was warning against. If you have some other evidence or paper justifying why we can ignore obvious inefficiencies please provide a source. That's a rather radical claim to make, though, which may be why you find people struggle with the concept.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]