Another quote from Knuth, from that same paper: > The improvement in speed from Example 2 to Example 2a is only about 12%, and many people would pronounce that

Another quote from Knuth, from that same paper: > The improvement in speed from Example 2 to Example 2a is only about 12%, and many people would pronounce that insignificant. The conventional wisdom shared by many of today's software engineers calls for ignoring efficiency in the small; but I believe this is simply an overreaction to the abuses they see being practiced by penny-wise-and-pound-foolish programmers, who can't debug or maintain their "optimized" programs. In established engineering disciplines a 12% improvement, easily obtained, is never considered marginal; and I believe the same viewpoint should prevail in software engineering. Of course I wouldn't bother making such optimizations on a one-shot job, but when it's a question of preparing quality programs, I don't want to restrict myself to tools that deny me such efficiencies. That paper was published in 1974 and yet it captures the mindset of many a programmer in 2023 perfectly. The part I like about this paragraph is the "easily obtained" sentence; I saw a comment from someone mentioning that they made a JavaScript program 10 times faster by replacing the common functional programming combinators (map, filter, reduce, etc.) with for loops. I think most of us would say such a change is easily obtained, does not make the code impossible to debug or maintain, and gives such a massive improvement that it should be a no brainer to reach for it.