4 ms·
We 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
by sklivvz1971 12y ago
We 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.).