??? 06/25/04 21:55 Read: times |
#73178 - RE: Why we have HLLs Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Andy Neil wrote:
------------------------------- The fact is, with modern high-performance, low-cost hardware, the need for ultimate runtime efficiency is greatly diminished, and modern optimising compilers do a very good job; the cost & availability of Good programmers, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter... I agree that ultimate runtime efficiency is not always needed. If one develops a domestic electronic heating control, there is no need to spend time for super efficient and time-critical programming. On the other hand, the fact that you can make your (less than efficient) application run by just adding more "horsepower" to it, should never be an excuse for suboptimal programming (and that is where I agree on the windows bloatware statement of Erik). regards Patrick |
Topic | Author | Date |
Why learn assembler part two | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Why learn assembler part two | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Why learn assembler part two | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Why we have HLLs | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Why we have HLLs | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: Why we have HLLs![]() | 01/01/70 00:00 |