On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:54:53 -0700, Jeroen Mostert <jm******@xs4all.nl>
wrote:
I wasn't looking for a fight along the "my idea is better than yours"
divide.
Nor am I. It's just that inexperienced programmers too often get caught
up in the "let's make this optimal" approach that it's worth pointing out
at opportune moments that just because something is more performant, that
doesn't mean it's the best approach.
I don't have a problem with your contribution, but that doesn't mean I
think it should be left without some additional commentary pointing out
that in at least what should be a typical case (ie relatively small
resources), it's likely to be better to choose a simpler option.
I'm sure it wasn't your intent, but describing the alternatives you
suggested as having "saving the overhead..." carries an implication that
it's a better solution in an objective, unqualified way. In fact, of
course, it's only "better" in certain context, context I think was worth
pointing out.
Or a discussion on things that I hope everyone can decide for their own.
When all of the facts, they can.
>But you're right...if someone really wants to get a stream directly,
they can.
Let's promote this to my main point and forget about my ill-advised
dropping of the "o" word, lest I be branded as an optimization bum and
an enemy of simplicity for the rest of my life, which would be a shame.
Yes, indeed. :)
Pete