Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:27231 comp.lang.misc:4655
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
From: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: A note for those not consumed by efficiency worries
Message-ID: <15286@bfmny0.UU.NET>
Date: 26 Mar 90 05:32:24 GMT
References: <1990Mar21.061420.9862@athena.mit.edu> <1990Mar21.163413.10711@aqdata.uucp> <1990Mar22.072712.10902@diku.dk> <1084@targon.UUCP> <1990Mar24.223710.16191@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Followup-To: comp.lang.c
Lines: 19

I.	Code it portably and soundly.

II.	Identify the places where the CPU wastes most of its time.

III.	Replace those sections, CONDITIONALLY if possible, with less
	portable, faster code.

Every good programmer KNOWS this works, and saves time in the long run.
That's precisely why some programmers HATE it, and waste words railing
against it.  It's like eating your vegetables.  Programming, as a field,
does not venerate vegetable eaters. :-)

The truth is that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, -or- no news is good
news.  The programs out there that are written RIGHT and optimized RIGHT
are the ones you never hear about, because they don't make news, they
just WORK.
-- 
Annex Canada now!  We need the room,    \)      Tom Neff
    and who's going to stop us.         (\      tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET