Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #25502
Show key headers only | View raw
On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 19:16:35 -0500, Lew wrote: > On 02/07/2011 06:26 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> On 06-02-2011 23:53, Mike Schilling wrote: >>> "Ken Wesson" <kwesson@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:4d4f63e6$1@news.x-privat.org... >>>> The only real bone of contention seems to be "how clear was it that >>>> Mike meant it that way in <iii7jc$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. >>> >>> I meant it disparagingly, and that was clear, it seems, to people who >>> know the way I tend to express myself. I see that it wasn't clear to >>> you at first, but I trust it is now. >> >> I find it difficult to imagine "micro optimization" even being used in >> a forum like this as something positive. I don't. As I said, it's easy to imagine it being applied in a neutral way to an optimization of a small, specific bit of code, such as a particular inner loop. > The whole, entire, universal point of the term "micro-optimization" is > to disparage foolish attempts to optimize that have the opposite effect. So you say. > I am simply astounded that "Ken Wesson" would pick a fight over > something so basic and universally well understood in the industry. Obviously, your experience with "the industry" differs from mine. Furthermore, I did not pick a fight. I observed that the only thing Microsoft is known for optimizing is the size of their cashflow (<4d4cc253 $1@news.x-privat.org>). The only one that might be picking a fight with is Microsoft. Yet Arne responded in a manner seemingly intended to disparage me. Unless Arne takes it personally when people disparage Microsoft, then, it looks an awful lot like Arne was the one picking fights here. > Especially after several people have set him straight! Nobody has "set me straight". One of you has clarified that the original use of "micro-optimization" was intended to disparage rather than to be neutral. There is a difference between "clarified" and "set someone straight". The difference is the same as someone having allowed for several possibilities, one of which turned out to be the case, and someone having only allowed for one possibility and having been wrong. You seem to think the latter occurred but it was the former, as I have said several times now. > What reason in the world can someone have to argue with the answers > universally provided by knowledgeable professionals in response to his > question? This is not even meaningful in this context, because I hadn't asked a question. > (Hint: It rhymes with the second syllable of "control".) And that is simply not constructive. Looks like Arne isn't the only one spoiling for a fight. Too bad for both of you, I'm not interested. I refuse to stoop to your level, which is barely above explicit name-calling. We obviously have had different patterns of experience in our encounters with the term under discussion. That is not a rational basis for either side disparaging the other. Let's drop this noisome subject and move on.
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar
Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Ken Wesson <kwesson@gmail.com> - 2011-02-08 11:10 +0100 Re: Why No Supplemental Characters In Character Literals? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-08 22:51 -0500
csiph-web