On Tuesday, 8 October 2013 at 19:52:32 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote:
On 10/8/13 10:00 AM, Dicebot wrote:
proper performance
I apologize for picking out your post, Dicebot, as the
illustrative example, but I see this pop up in various
discussion and I've been meaning to comment on it for a while.
Please stop using words like 'proper', 'real', and other
similar terms to describe a requirement. It's a horrible
specifier and adds no useful detail.
It tends to needlessly setup the convarsation as
confrontational or adversarial and implies that anyone that
disagrees is wrong or not working on a real system. There's
lots of cases where pushing to the very edge of bleeding isn't
actually required.
Thanks,
Brad
What wording would you suggest to use? For me "proper" is pretty
much equal to "meeting requirements / expectations as defined by
similar projects written in C". It has nothing do with "real" vs
"toy" projects, just implies that in some domains such
expectations are more restrictive.
