On 23 Jan, 22:39, George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 23, 4:48 pm, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > cybersource.com.au> wrote: > > As for your other points, I think we're actually very much in agreement, > > except for your tolerance of random posters asking what I believe is an > > incoherent question: "what's the fastest way to do ...?". It seems to me > > you're willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they've done > > their profiling and considered their trade-offs, or at the very worst are > > asking from purely intellectual curiosity. > > It depends on the specific problem and the context. For small well- > defined algorithmic type problems, I just assume it's intellectual > curiosity or that performance really matters. If the same question was > asked in the context of, say, a typical web application fetching data > from a database and rendering dynamic pages, I might have dismissed it > as YAGNI. > > George
George, I tend to think that the more context an OP gives, the more thought they have given their problem. Often, to get a better answer you need to help the OP divulge context. I too like the intellectual challenge of exploring small problem, and from lurking on c.l.p I thought there would be lots of answers of that ilk, but this time I thought why not contribute in a different way? Reading c.l.p I am often reminded of good software practice memes in answers and think its part of what makes c.l.p. a rewarding experience. It may be hubris to think that a random reader might read my post and then follow my points before making a routine faster; but there you go :-) - Paddy. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
