22 Jun
2004
22 Jun
'04
5:55 a.m.
(1) Reliability is always more important. But
memory/CPU cycles
cannot be ignored when your customers are running benchmarks, and when
you're trying to beat the competition using less expensive hardware
than they are.
Frankly, I don't think too many applications are ever tested for speed
other than "is it fast enough not to be a pain?". Sure, some applications
need speed at the forefront, but let's face it, most don't. There are
probably ten times the number of people writing programs that balance
checkbooks or are just dressed up interfaces for some other mundane
programs, to the one guy that is writing some speed needing game. When it
comes to testing these mundane programs for speed, typically the
requirement is "just don't make it slow".
(2) Yes indeed -- but being skilled at assembly
language programming imposes a useful discipline that carries over
into other languages.
Yes, but how useful? I don't think the industry thinks it is worth it.
As a side (and to give the hornet's nest another whack), shouldn't good
programming discipline be formed using Pascal? That is why it was
invented. You break the rules, it yells at you.
Of course, Pascal is falling from grace as well...
William Donzelli
aw288(a)osfn.org