> it makes sense to make the library lean and lacking obvious bloats, or at least make efficient code paths possible without forcing the application programmer to indulge in excessive verbosity.
Does not apply to these people:
> It's hard enough teaching people to avoid inefficiency when it's right there in front of them, and harder still when you encapsulate inefficiency in a pretty package.
who, by definition, are not experienced enough to write code that is sufficiently lean and lacking obvious bloat, or at least make efficient code paths possible. If they were, then they won't have a problem with the pretty package either.
Oh, I know - it was from the post which you replied to.
I only wanted to point out that in the context of the comment you replied to, I didn't feel that those were the people who should be worrying about optimised code.
> it makes sense to make the library lean and lacking obvious bloats, or at least make efficient code paths possible without forcing the application programmer to indulge in excessive verbosity.
Does not apply to these people:
> It's hard enough teaching people to avoid inefficiency when it's right there in front of them, and harder still when you encapsulate inefficiency in a pretty package.
who, by definition, are not experienced enough to write code that is sufficiently lean and lacking obvious bloat, or at least make efficient code paths possible. If they were, then they won't have a problem with the pretty package either.