Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient |
| Date | 2012-04-12 18:51 +0000 |
| Organization | Stack Usenet News Service |
| Message-ID | <slrnjoe91o.et6.willem@toad.stack.nl> (permalink) |
| References | <d965f1e6-f918-4c5b-88f8-b5c09644faef@f5g2000vby.googlegroups.com> <49ebab7f-9397-4a3b-b3a9-69652759060a@dc2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <50f51e45-c855-46a4-a6f6-f92eec4e05c1@j15g2000vbt.googlegroups.com> <685a3f2a-6780-4ce9-8faa-4b9f5c47216f@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com> <4F8721DD.9020409@verizon.net> |
James Kuyper wrote:
) On 04/12/2012 02:32 PM, John Reye wrote:
)> On Apr 12, 6:38 pm, ImpalerCore <jadil...@gmail.com> wrote:
)>> 1. Make it work.
)>> 2. Make it pretty. (well designed API, documentation)
)>> 3. Make it robust. (handle errors gracefully)
)>> 4. Make it fast. (if you really need to)
)>
)> 1. Consider what you need: does it need to be fast? is it throw-away-
)> program? is it part of a large project?
)> You only need one rule. You cannot generalize, cause it always...
)> depends. ;)
)
) "Make it work" is always first - if you don't need the program to work
) correctly, you don't need to write a new program; there's plenty of
) existing programs that already don't do whatever it is that the new
) program was supposed to do.
That's the kind of thinking that brought us 2-megabyte XML blobs
as "database entities". Some stuff you just can't refactor when
it turns out it's a performance killer, so you *have* to account
for that from the beginning. Not to mention 'if it works, ship'
SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient John Reye <jononanon@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-12 09:01 -0700
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient John Reye <jononanon@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-12 09:05 -0700
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2012-04-12 09:38 -0700
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient John Reye <jononanon@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-12 11:32 -0700
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-04-12 14:41 -0400
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2012-04-12 18:51 +0000
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com - 2012-04-13 03:46 -0700
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2012-04-13 14:51 +0000
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-04-13 12:38 -0400
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-04-15 19:47 +0300
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2012-04-12 09:09 -0700
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient John Reye <jononanon@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-12 11:13 -0700
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2012-04-12 18:20 -0700
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-04-12 18:13 +0200
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-04-12 12:47 -0400
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient John Reye <jononanon@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-12 11:22 -0700
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-04-13 22:37 +0200
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-04-15 20:15 +0300
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-04-15 23:30 +0200
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-04-12 09:20 -0700
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2012-04-12 18:34 +0200
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-04-12 18:00 +0000
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com - 2012-04-13 03:50 -0700
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient John Reye <jononanon@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-12 11:24 -0700
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-04-12 13:08 -0700
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-04-12 12:50 -0400
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient John Reye <jononanon@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-12 11:30 -0700
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-04-12 15:55 -0400
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2012-04-12 11:41 -0700
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2012-04-12 19:08 +0000
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-04-12 21:07 +0100
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-04-12 20:35 -0400
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-04-13 11:38 +0100
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-04-13 09:52 -0400
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-04-13 17:56 +0100
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-04-13 12:56 -0400
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-04-13 14:48 -0400
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-04-14 07:22 -0700
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-04-12 21:23 -0400
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Quentin Pope <qp19433@hotmail.NOSPAM.com> - 2012-04-13 16:52 +0000
Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-04-13 23:24 +0200
csiph-web