On Friday, August 2, 2002, at 08:36 , Dennis G. Wicks wrote: > On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Jenda Krynicky wrote: > >> Computing power is cheap, programmers' time is expensive! [..] > The cost of inefficient programs is cumulative and results > in increasing all the infrastructure costs because of the > requirement for more and more "cheap" computing power. [..]
but that also means more goods and services as more manufactured products are release to compensate for bad coding. in like manner coding it badly the first time also means that if and when the project is identified as 'under-performing' - then of course there is all sorts of employment opportunity for managers, designers, and even software developers. The structural flaw in your argument is that the decision to use 'perl' was based upon the implicit efficiencies in it for the task at hand - both at the run time level, as well as the development cycle. Which, as we all know, leads to the code being more efficiently maintained, causing a down draft in the sales of server, which causes a down draft in the number of chips sold, and the complete economic catastrophy of deflationary practices. Not to mention the unpleasantry that there are fewer jobs for software developers, as there is less code that needs to be maintained by highly trained highly paid technical experts. Hum.... I think this leads us to why the project should have been done in C++ and/or Object Oriented Cobol... or.... but clearly perl was a very unpatriotic choice to make in these grim economic times.... ciao drieux --- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
