[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: The no goto religion
From:       "Robert Knight" <robertknight () gmail ! com>
Date:       2007-08-05 2:42:14
Message-ID: 13ed09c00708041942w4abf6fa5pfbeee511bec43f74 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

> His numbers are based on how
> the code would compile.  Not on actual execution in a specific
> architecture.  I don't think that there is any doubt that, in most
> cases, more instructions will result in longer execution time.

I have now read the PDF of the paper you linked to.  It was an
interesting read, thank you for providing the link.

However, I believe that it does not support the theme of your posts.
From the introductory section in which Knuth provides the background
to the debate (page 268):

  "A good programmer
  will not be lulled into complacency by such
  reasoning, he will be wise to look carefully
  at the critical code; but only after that code
  has been identified. It is often a mistake to
  make a priori judgments about what part
  of a program are really critical, since the
  universal experience of programmers who
  have been using measurement tools has been
  that their intuitive guesses fail."

And just before that, the now legendary quote:

> We should forget about small
> efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: pre-
> mature optimization is the root of all evi

Given that most of KDE is essentially sitting atop a big stack of
other libraries,

On 05/08/07, Gabriel Anderson <zettablade@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is this guy trolling?
>
> >> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe
> <<
>
 
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]