jlee54 at gmail.com
Thu Jul 5 13:41:36 EDT 2018
On 07/05/18 10:15, Calvin Spealman wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 12:59 PM, Jim Lee <jlee54 at gmail.com
> <mailto:jlee54 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> On 07/05/18 05:14, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer <arj.python at gmail.com
> <mailto:arj.python at gmail.com>>:
> * Create as many functions as you can
> Seriously, though. The principle of expressive encapsulation
> is one of
> the basic cornerstones of writing computer programs.
> Performance barely
> ever becomes a question, and even more rarely has anything to
> do with
> the number of function calls (low-level programming language
> optimize efficiently).
> The most important objective of software development is the
> of complexity. Silly performance optimizations are way down
> the priority
> Sadly, this *is* the current mindset.
> "Don't bother optimizing, the compiler does it better than you can."
> I think that is a pretty clear mis-characterization of what was said.
Well, you did say "silly performance optimizations".
> The mindset isn't that optimization will be done for you, but that it
> isn't high on a priority list.
Things at the bottom of a priority list tend to never get done -
especially in the current era of software development. And if you
rarely or never do something, you lose the skill. The horde of
programmers a generation or two from now may have no clue how to do
these things. That's the pitfall behind "smart tools".
> Tell me, who writes the compilers? When we die off, nobody will
> have a clue how to do it...
More information about the Python-list