Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!ncar!ames!umd5!uvaarpa!virginia!uvacs!rwl
From: rwl@uvacs.CS.VIRGINIA.EDU (Ray Lubinsky)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Why you should use puts(3) when you don't need printf(3)
Message-ID: <2318@uvacs.CS.VIRGINIA.EDU>
Date: 21 Mar 88 15:07:11 GMT
References: <2304@uvacs.CS.VIRGINIA.EDU> <2770@mmintl.UUCP>
Organization: U.Va. CS in Charlottesville VA
Lines: 17

In article <2770@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:
> There is a time and a place for careful programming to maximize speed.  And
> there is a time and a place for lazy programming.  For code which is only
> going to be run a few times, or code whose execution time is dominated by
> physical I/O time (or user response time), lazy programming is the way to go.

Sure, sure.  I was of course referring to serious coding.  But if I have
something I'm going to throw away after a few uses, I'll just write a shell
script or an awk program.  Now that's *real* inefficient in terms of execution
speed, but given the tiny amount of development time needed, it's quite
acceptable.

-- 
| Ray Lubinsky,                    UUCP:      ...!uunet!virginia!uvacs!rwl    |
| Department of                    BITNET:    rwl8y@virginia                  |
| Computer Science,                CSNET:     rwl@cs.virginia.edu  -OR-       |
| University of Virginia                      rwl%uvacs@uvaarpa.virginia.edu  |