4 ms·
Fair point. It's possible when they said "efficient", they did not mean "hardware efficient, runs fast, doesn't use a lot of resources" but "developer efficien
by shurcooL 12y ago
Fair point.
It's possible when they said "efficient", they did not mean "hardware efficient, runs fast, doesn't use a lot of resources" but "developer efficient, faster to write and easier to understand". But that entire phrase as is doesn't make sense, I agree with that.
It's also possible to be a simple mistake. Maybe they went overboard with marketing phrases and claimed something that isn't quite true.
- sklivvz1971 12y agoWe never said that. The closest I can think of is that simple code (short stack, no DI, layering, etc.) is simpler AND faster at the same time, and in my talk I give specific examples.
- kbenson 12y agoTo me, that sounds like you are saying simple code is often efficient (or that efficient code can by simple), not that efficient code is simpler (which is how I interpret the original text). To be very clear, I don't doubt the author (you?) had a good point to make, just that it was unclear what that was from the way it was presented, and to such a degree that it took me out of the flow of reading the post, and perhaps a less ambiguous way of expressing that concept (or omitting it, if it's expressed succinctly elsewhere) would be clearer and more effective.
- sklivvz1971 12y agoSorry, I'm not the author, I'm the guy at Stack Overflow that's being cited by the article (Marco C.).
- kbenson 12y agoAll, true, which is why I outlined my assumptions and left it open for others to help try to figure out. :) Unfortunately, if it is just poor communication on their part, we'll likely get no answers that can be considered more likely than others without original author or someone related (work-wise) piping up.