Le 19 août 2011 18:06, Cédric Girard <girard.cedric@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit : > On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Thomas Dziedzic <gostrc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> >> I agree that your arguments have a valid point of view all the way up >> to this point where you lost me. >> For me, "lack of quality" is in the same category as "lack of quality >> impacts speed" >> For example, lets have the same badly written algorithm compiled with >> no optimization and the other being compiled with -O999 ZOMG!! >> It doesn't matter to me if one ruins your system faster, it will still >> do the same thing. >> This is why I think the "lack of quality impacts speed" issue being >> completely different from "lack of quality" is invalid. > > > I will try to explain my point with an example. Take a bash script which > needs to find some string into a file. > Let's do this the ugly way: > echo $(cat $file) | grep -q "%PROVIDES%.*$1" > Let's do this the correct way: > grep -q "%PROVIDES%.*$1" $file > This is a wrong example :) Those commands are different. "echo $(cat file) |" provides an input without "\n" > If both take the same resources to execute, you may say: OK, the first one > is ugly but I don't really care because both give the same result and there > is no performance impact. > Now, if the first one appears to be way slower than the second one, the > situation is different because not only it impacts the developer (complex > code hard to understand and maintains) but it also impacts the end user > (have to wait longer than needed). > > This example was one real example taken from yaourt at the state it was in > January 2010. There is nothing ugly in the way it will not work or break > your system. It was just ugly and slow code. > > -- > Cédric Girard >
