Timeline for When is optimization not premature and therefore not evil?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 7, 2016 at 9:54 | comment | added | RemcoGerlich | Conversely, if you never know how your library is going to be used, you don't know whether spending time on improving it has any business value at all. So that's hardly an argument. | |
| Jan 7, 2016 at 1:44 | history | edited | Robert Harvey | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Jan 3, 2016 at 23:14 | comment | added | Nathan Tuggy | +1 for emphasizing the design phase; if you're deliberately weighing its benefits, it's not premature. | |
| Jun 17, 2015 at 10:23 | comment | added | sleske | Sorry, but "be good in all aspects" sounds suspiciously like overengineering. Plus, it's probably not realistic - life is always about tradeoffs. | |
| May 13, 2014 at 1:56 | comment | added | supercat | Library code should document whether it's trying to be "as good as possible", or what its objective is. Code need not be absolutely optimal in order to be useful, provided that consumers only use it when appropriate. | |
| Jan 2, 2011 at 2:02 | history | edited | sbi | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 101 characters in body; added 6 characters in body; edited body
|
| Jan 1, 2011 at 20:39 | history | answered | sbi | CC BY-SA 2.5 |