Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!mailrus!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!bill
From: bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Value of microeffiency (was: Re: Optimal ...)
Message-ID: <493@proxftl.UUCP>
Date: 19 Jul 88 08:27:56 GMT
References: <163@navtech.uucp> <2775@ttrdc.UUCP> <164@navtech.uucp> <3693@rpp386.UUCP> <449@proxftl.UUCP> <30827@cca.CCA.COM>
Reply-To: bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells)
Organization: Proximity Technology, Ft. Lauderdale
Lines: 23
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Keywords:

In article <30827@cca.CCA.COM> g-rh@CCA.CCA.COM.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
) Wells discusses at length the point that 'good' and 'bad' are context
) dependent terms when applied to algorithms, with particular reference
) to sorting algorithms.
)
) What he did not do is point out that John's comments were a nonresponsive
) false dichotomoty.  The original comment ammounts to:
)
) "Pick the right algorithm and then optimize it."
)
) John's response amounts to:
)
) "An optimized bad algorithm is worse than a good algorithm."

Thanks for writing the second half of my article.  :-) I had
originally intended to point out just that but I got carried away
ranting about the false assumptions inherent in the usual notion
of "good" algorithms.  I even started the article out with this
summary line:

)Summary: ever heard of the "false dichotomy"?

Too bad I didn't keep it in mind while writing the article.  I
could have made it much shorter!