Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #26001

Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals?

Show all headers | View raw

On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 11:15:05 -0500, Lew wrote:

> Ken Wesson wrote:
>>> Micro-optimization: making some tiny bit of something (a single loop,
>>> a single algorithm or data structure) better.
> 
> Which is opposite to optimization in many cases.  "Better" in
> micro-optimization is frequently worse for the system.

That depends, doesn't it? Frequently != always.

> Ken Wesson wrote:
>>> No doubt the latter can carry connotations, including negative
>>> (optimizing a tiny bit of something without considering the forest,
>>> only the trees), in certain contexts, but the post that first used the
>>> term in this thread did not IMO clearly convey any such subtext.
> 
> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> It seems rather clear to me that Mike's usage had the programmer
>> meaning not the English meaning in mind.
> 
> It's obvious to anyone who isn't trolling.

Nobody here is trolling, and it doesn't accomplish anything useful to 
start throwing the accusation around. It just encourages some of the 
people arguing to stop being reasonable if they expect they won't get a 
fair hearing or be listened to anyway.

Actually I'm not even sure why there's an argument here. I don't think we 
disagree on the denotative content of "micro-optimization" and I don't 
think we disagree that it can be at the expense of optimization in the 
large, or that in some contexts it can be intended to imply such a case.

The only real bone of contention seems to be "how clear was it that Mike 
meant it that way in <iii7jc$ssv$1@news.eternal-september.org>?" And I 
don't think that's very important anymore. Certainly not important enough 
to be making posts implying that various people are trolls, or not 
"really" programmers, or similarly over it.

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-04 22:30 -0500
  Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-07 19:16 -0500
  Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-07 18:26 -0500
  Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-06 11:15 -0500
    Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Ken Wesson <kwesson@gmail.com> - 2011-02-07 04:15 +0100
      Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-02-06 20:53 -0800
  Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Ken Wesson <kwesson@gmail.com> - 2011-02-05 07:15 +0100
    Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 09:25 -0500
  Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Ken Wesson <kwesson@gmail.com> - 2011-02-05 04:48 +0100
    Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-02-04 21:46 -0800

csiph-web