Timeline for Should one value simpler code over performance when returning multiple values?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 22, 2016 at 12:31 | comment | added | sdenham | Knuth's aphorism is one of the many good ideas that have been turned into mindless dogma by a segment of the developer community. I feel that software development attracts people who can only think in terms of dichotomies, and that if X is good, then total X must be perfection. | |
| Oct 31, 2014 at 0:28 | history | edited | assylias | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Oct 30, 2014 at 19:23 | history | edited | assylias | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 206 characters in body
|
| Oct 30, 2014 at 19:06 | comment | added | user22815 | Classes do not necessarily have a lot of overhead. The question was about Java, which currently handles creating lots of little objects like this one very well. | |
| Oct 30, 2014 at 1:50 | comment | added | andy256 | Yes, there is no justification for writing what I call deliberately inefficient code. [long rant omitted] | |
| Oct 29, 2014 at 23:10 | comment | added | DougM | "but, there's a lot of overhead in making a whole new class!" -- would say the novice upon hearing that premature optimization is overemphasized. :) | |
| Oct 29, 2014 at 22:47 | history | edited | assylias | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 80 characters in body
|
| Oct 29, 2014 at 22:40 | history | edited | assylias | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 46 characters in body
|
| Oct 29, 2014 at 22:33 | history | answered | assylias | CC BY-SA 3.0 |