> Up to a point - but the danger is that you end up with a design which is > optimally coded that no-one can understand, and is hence difficult to debug > and (assuming you can get it working) maintain.
I beg to differ: newpixel = ( pixel1 + pixel2 ) >> 1; This is hard to understand? Maybe because I come from a electronics background but the above code is very easy to understand! Very easy to debug! and has worked flawlessly for over 30 years. > And far too many programmers attempt to optimize their code and end up with a > mess, instead of concentrating on a good, clear design. If there are still > performance problems, then by all means look for areas to optimize (probably > after running some sort of profiler). Here again this is good clean design, fast and efficient. This is not "an attempt to optimize code" it is a good habit that has valid roots going back many years. > > I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree :-) >
