Re: version of euphoria ZIP
Vincent wrote:
> Juergen Luethje wrote:
>>
>> Vincent wrote:
[snipped (not necessary to repeat the same stuff over and over again)]
>>> Obviously effeciency is not top priority for you, but that is quite ok.
>>
>> This is not "obvious", but false and a simplistic statement.
>> Writing efficient code does not just mean using some machine specific
>> routines with comments. You might want to read the Euphoria
>> documentation carefully, in order to learn more about writing efficient
>> code.
>
> Well excuse me, when did I *ever* imply that using machine specific
> routines is the only way to improve program efficency?
No, you did not imply that it's the *only* way to improve program
efficency. But when you write:
"Obviously effeciency is not top priority for you"
just because I do not agree with you, that generally using machine_proc()
is a good idea, then that statement implies that you think it's an
*important* way to do so. But that is not the case (as Matt also has
pointed out the day before yesterday).
> One of the most important factors in determinding efficency has to do
> with the algorithms one develops.
>
> FYI sir, I have read the Euphoria documentation several times, and
> overlook perform.htm/doc tips with everything I do in Euphoria.
OK, then you probably know some ways how to really make a program more
efficient.
>> For instance I use profile and profile_time to examine programs.
>> Depending on the program, there are several ways to make it more
>> efficient. Sometimes I write parts of a program in assembler.
>
> I suppose peeking & poking machine code is easily readable too, correct?
As I wrote, I do so *sometimes*, in selected cases. I'm not advocating
for writing all programms in assembler.
It's like in medicine: We should get a correct diagnosis first, in order
to be able to choose an appropriate therapy.
Regards,
Juergen
--
Have you read a good program lately?
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
