🚀 go-pugleaf

Ya know, shouldn't there be a comp.programming group for programming
discussions that aren't related to any particular language? We have IBM
and UNIX and games programming groups, but no general comp.programming
to be the practical side of comp.software-eng. I wonder.

In article <21594@yunexus.YorkU.CA> oz@yunexus.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit) writes:
> >In article <21548@yunexus.YorkU.CA> oz@yunexus.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit) writes:
> >> No program
> >> should make multiple passes over a disk file when it could accomplish its
> >> task with a single pass with hardly any effort on the programmer's part.
> Those
> were your own words plus a trivial meaning-preserving transformation.

Be serious. Time, space, and human effort are by far the most important
three factors in programming. When you can get a noticeable improvement
in one without noticeably hurting another, you should do so. That's what
I've been saying all along.

Now you bring in the fourth god of ``number of passes.'' Wtf are you
talking about? The number of passes matters *only* in how it affects
time, space, and human effort. Lots of examples bear this out.

I still say that your generalization about the number of passes is
ridiculous. It doesn't match anything I've ever said by a ``trivial
meaning-preserving transformation,'' and I wish you would stop putting
words into my mouth.

---Dan