|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Dans un courrier daté du 13/11/98 08:43:48 Heure d8iver Pari48 Madrid,
bnm03@xxxxxxx a écrit :
> Pierre,
>
> You know I've been to just a few titles of french software and they all
have
> one common trait: they're way too complex, poorly laid out and generally
> overkill for the task.
Off topic.
We need a green card maybe?
Have you also a definitive advice on Zululand software industry?
>
> And your insistance that paying such huge amount of attention to trivial
> detail like what you've outlined below (CPU time, not takling a defensive
> stand) should somehow be construed as good programming is yet another
> example of pedagouge approach French seem to take to software. I don't know
> what you were taught in France but here in America we're taught that
> simplicty is better than complexity. We write and rewrite our papers until
> just the esseance of our message is left for the reader to quickly absorb.
> In France they must teach something different because you don't seem to do
> this.
Off topic.
>
> This concept applied to programming, means learning to recognize what is
> important and what isn't important. Obviously you can't or else you would
> recognize the foolishness of you pursuits.
>
> This means asking yourself why am I doing this? What are my bottom-line
> objectives, et. al. Obviously you don't because you waste too much time on
> trivial, meaningless things like CPU time.
No.
I gave you a lesson.
For free.
My point was a minor one , and I wanted to warn you that when you want to give
lessons to anyone, you should yourself to be irreprochable.
That's aside, it's a minor point and do not invalidate your programming
skills.
I only want to make you less intolerant toward Omega, that is still the only
game in town for the moment.
Now, it's time to top this thread.I have better things to so, same for you I
suppose, not to speak of most of readers of this list.
>
> I asked myself these questions when I wrote this. Thus once I had it on
> paper, it took a couple minutes to program but longer to verify. Once I
was
> done with it, I was done. I minimized my time and maximized my gain. My
> goals were met.
>
> However, my solution takes a couple lines. Your alternative solution takes
> around 5 lines. How is this better by your standards?
>
2 lines. Not 5.
The CPU time is not directly dependent of the source code length.
> If you want to be a PEDAGOUGE go ahead be my guest. But I will tell you
the
> best solutions are the simplest solutions. They are more robust and easily
> reinterpreted. And the best programming is defensive, readable
programming.
>
> Of course, you've never had exposure TO A REAL PC LANGUAGE -- YOU"VE
STATED
> THAT YOUSELF. IF YOU DID YOU WOULD REALIZE THAT EASY LANGUAGE IS QUIRKY
AND
> THAT YOU HAVE TO TAKE A MORE DEFESNIVE APPROACH THAN YOU WOULD IN A REAL
> LANGUAGE LIKE VB.
>
You have TradeLab List rather than this one.
The use VB and have a product that will fit your needs.
> Easy Lanagauge not only has a stupid name but the EL really stands for
> EXTREMELY LAME.
>
EL is nothing else than Pascal+ some special trading features.
Thousands of people use it.
Fortunately, they are not so verbose.
> I agree that elegance is nice but in coding, but computers are so fast that
> a little extra defensive code JUST DOESN'T MATTER.
>
It has too.
> Say it with me Pierre (I know it's hard) - -IT-JUST-DOESN'T-MATTER!!!!
>
> If it takes you an extra week to program your elegant solution that may or
> may not save a couple CPU cycles -- yes it's clever -- but your product is
a
> week late getting to market and now where are you? Up poop creek I'd say.
>
It took to me 5 minutes to code my shortest solution and five times more to
explain.
Rgds
PO
|