On 1/4/13 4:04 AM, Ondrej Bilka wrote:
Profiling will reveal that you spend 5% time in insert and 3% time in
remove. You spend two weeks optimizing your tree and memory allocator
for it.
The call tree, accumulating these costs in different parent contexts,
when correlated to the fact that
On 12/31/12 10:30 AM, Paul Homer wrote:
Now I know that sounds weird, but not if one accepts that a clunky,
ugly language like COBOL was actually very successful. Lots of stuff
was written, much of it still running. Its own excessive verbosity
helps in making it fixable by a broader group of
On 12/31/12 2:58 PM, Paul D. Fernhout wrote:
Unless you know what to look for (and even sometimes if you do), it is
hard to tell whether a programmer spending a month or two refactoring
or writing tests is making the system better, or making the system
worse, or maybe just is not doing much at
On 12/31/12 1:44 PM, Paul D. Fernhout wrote:
So, it was a meta-bug in that sense about an unexpected meaning shift
when a number leaked beyond a boundary that was supposed to contain it.
[..]
I'm not sure what sort of automated systems could deal with that kind
of unexpected semantic shift?
On 12/31/12 8:30 PM, Paul D. Fernhout wrote:
So, I guess another meta-level bug in the Linux Kernel is that it is
written in C, which does not support certain complexity management
features, and there is no clear upgrade path from that because C++ has
always had serious linking problems.
But
