On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 11:35, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Dirk Koopman said:
>
> > Yes, maybe, but show me one of these systems that _consistantly_
> > produces faster code than someone who is "talented". I willingly agree
> > that the code is physically produced faster - but it don't go as well.
> >
> > And this is the nub of it. Basically there aren't enough "talented"
> > people to go around. Therefore people try to throw ("talentedly"
> > programmed) machines at the problem to try to get a better result than
> > average. But that is all you will get: slightly better code a lot
> > quicker.
>
> Which then leaves you with a lot of time to:
>
> - test the code really well
> - profile it to find the real hotspots, and optimise them
> - decide that slightly better is good enough and ship the thing early
> - do something more important or interesting
> - natter on #london.pm
If it is good or fast enough for you then you *could* use a nice
scripting language. I believe that Python and Ruby are increasing
popular now. Then you can have even more of the above as it seems that
the development cycle in these languages is really short...
Dirk
--
Please Note: Some Quantum Physics Theories Suggest That When the
Consumer Is Not Directly Observing This Product, It May Cease to
Exist or Will Exist Only in a Vague and Undetermined State.
