From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: Efficiency? Date: 2000/10/06 Message-ID: <3179815377988891@naggum.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 678236503 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit References: <8rau5s$dd4$1@mozo.cc.purdue.edu> <8rfm3d$2je$1@counter.bik-gmbh.de> <39DB96F7.DEDB431F@ncgr.org> mail-copies-to: never Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 970828454 6420 195.0.192.66 (6 Oct 2000 10:34:14 GMT) Organization: Naggum Software; vox: +47 800 35477; gsm: +47 93 256 360; fax: +47 93 270 868; http://naggum.no; http://naggum.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.7 Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Oct 2000 10:34:14 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp * "Frank A. Adrian" | Then there must not be many "good" programmers out there. Well, duh! | The few studies that have been performed to test this conjecture are | conclusive in showing that your statement is unlikely to be true. | Most recognized "good programmers" also disagree, having learned the | hard way that their suppositions about what is a bottleneck are | usually incorrect. However, a good dose of profiling before | optimization can work wonders. Has it occurred to that they disagree after the ones they have agreed on didn't even come up? If you're a good programmer, you don't do utterly boneheaded things only to discover sometime later that it's a bottleneck. E.g., good Lisp programmers know when to //--> coulud do with O(n). | No offense, but you are wrong, wrong, WRONG. Incredibly incorrect. No offense, but you don't listen to what others say, so whether you think it's incorrect is completely irrelevant. #:Erik -- If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations.