Re: [xsl] Re: compiled stylesheets was Re: Re: RE: creating a string of repeated charactors

Subject: Re: [xsl] Re: compiled stylesheets was Re: Re: RE: creating a string of repeated charactors
From: "cutlass" <cutlass@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 12:33:42 +0100
this is definately off topic,

but i wonder what we will be saying if/when (  there are now about a dozen
operating worldwide at the moment )quantum computers become commercial

maybe efficient coding is an artiface( analogous to our use of assignment
statements and gotos once were when making the functional programming
leap..) born through limitations of our current hardware ( not to mention
having only 10 fingers for inputting ), maybe we will find that through
incredibly complicated, error ridden, poorly constructed, trillion line
programs we will find richer and greater expressions of functionality.

i suspect that programmers will turn into farmers soon enough.

cheers, jim fuller

----- Original Message -----
From: "cutlass" <cutlass@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: [xsl] Re: compiled stylesheets was Re: Re: RE: creating a
string of repeated charactors

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dimitre Novatchev" <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 11:50 AM
> Subject: [xsl] Re: compiled stylesheets was Re: Re: RE: creating a string
> repeated charactors
> > > The days of optimizing from build start to end are nearly over ( gasp
> should
> > > i be saying this.....) in a world where things are still slow with 1
> > > chip and 500 meg RAM, i am convinced that hardware advances ( and
> network )
> > > will far outstrip code optimisation, and us programmers shall get
> and
> > > lazier.. due to sheer ability to be lazy ( or not enough time to be
> super
> > > efficient ), not to mention that overall lifetime of any particular
> software
> > > is quite short lived ( at least the crap i write ).
> >
> > I would never justify inability to think with progress in hardware.
> hello Dimitre,
> hehe, no justification, its reality, if one surveys the top 10 software
> projects ( in budget and time ) in the world today, u will see
> a) inefficient 'slow' code ripe for refactoring and optimisation
> b) code not working as specified
> c) insufficient timing estimate of build
> d) poorly specified user requirements
> and this has nothing to do with inability to think , but rather classic
> project management problems.
> the 1st order problems that effect most coding, has nothing to do with the
> thinking ability of individual programmer ( the number of design patterns
> typical programmer uses throughout their career probably averages around
> 20-30 ), though in my case i raise my hand to writing professional code
> works properly though may require refactoring at some optimal point ( read
> after delivery date ).
> to poorly, indirectly, ( cant quite remember exact wording so please
> me Mr. Kay ) quote Michael Kay at the XSLT UK conference re his use of
> ( over lets say c++),' i would rather use a language that gives me the
> to redraft what i have written, in the time given '. which of course now
> means i am spending all my time rewriting my c++ code with java.
> so  i agree that a professional level should be maintained when writing
> xslt, but we should address 1st order problems, which means incorporating
> simple and standard compiling mechanism; the very nature of xslt lends
> itself to gaining signigicant benefits using standard compiling
> though we shall see.
> > Algorithms that require twice as much memory, or that copy (slightly
> transformed)
> > trees several times in memory are examples of this in XSLT.
> >
> > Producing (or at least striving to find) algorithms that require several
> times less
> > resources vs ignoring resourse limitations -- this will at any time make
> practical
> > the solution of a considerably larger class of problems.
> completely agree.
> cheers, jim fuller
>  XSL-List info and archive:

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread