Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 26th Sep 2012 23:25 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
Permalink for comment 536805
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-03-26
That means, in most scenarios, that the code will be suboptimal (when compiling and running it).
So, the real question would be "code faster or code readable"?
Sub-optimal code would be useless for kernels or real time systems.
Plus the reason for code comments is to make code readable. So there's little point, in my opinion at least, of writing deliberately crippled code just to make it readable.
That said, I don't agree with needlessly obfuscating code just for the sake of gaining a few clock cycles either.
So we're back to the earlier points at the top of this discussion: that there's a time and place for every methodology.