Language for the ages

[Jules Richardson]

Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
> Chuck Guzis wrote:
> 
>> On 10/20/2005 at 4:03 PM Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
>>
>>> But I wasn't talking about efficiency, I was talking about cleanliness. 
>>
>> Uh, oh!  You're beginning to sound like a Windows programmer!  No--I take
>> that back--most Windows code isn't clean or efficient. :)
>  
> But later on, I said to use the right tool for the right job. Many 
> Windows programmers don't do that either.

Actually there appears to have been a basic shift in society's thinking 
on that front over the last 50 years or so. At one point the philosophy 
seemed to be lots of tools, and the right tool for the job. Nowadays it 
seems to be a case of one tool, and using the same tool for all jobs.

(Personally the former approach seems far more sensible to me, but then 
I'm not an accountant :-)

> Clean code when the code needs to be clean.  Efficient code when the 
> code needs to be efficient.

Or better still, do both. I think that often gets lost by programmers - 
that in nearly all cases it's possible to write highly efficient code 
that's also simple to understand.

Mind you, I always gauge efficiency in terms of what the compiler turns 
out. I'm not a fan of the "efficiency" allowed in some languages (C 
being one of the biggest culprits!) which reduce the amount of typing 
but result in ten possible ways for the programmer to write the same 
thing - which ultimately gets compiled to the exact same binary anyway!

cheers

Jules