I read a lot of posts from folks saying basically, "I have this thing that works, but there must be a more efficient solution..."
Every time I read that, I want to write a reply saying, "Instead of trying to make something that works run faster, go fix something that doesn't work."
I've been scripting for probably 10 years and I can count on one hand the number of times something actually had to be fast.
I can totally respect folks who just like fast code, as long as they're honest about themselves when they do it. It's part of what makes programming fun.
On the other hand, some folks seem to feel guilty when they write code that's not as fast as it could possibly ever be.
If someone totally new to programming were to ask me for advice, I think I'd say "performance is for suckers."
What does everyone think about that? Am I totally crazy?
--Pileofrogs
Update: Awesome responses! ++ To everyone! (Okay, I'll have to come back tomorrow when I have more votes...)
I like saying 'Performance is for suckers' to new programmers because it makes them stop and think for a minute. My point isn't that performance really is for suckers, but that it's a priority worth considering rather than just assuming it's the most important thing. (Yeah, I didn't make that point very well.) Mostly, it seems like there's a culture that says it must be fast always, and I think that's kind of dumb.
I know I've sacrificed stability and features for performance that wasn't really needed, and I feel like that's more normal than it should be...
In reply to Is Performance Overrated? by pileofrogs
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |