Re: Date manipulation
From: JerryMouse (nospam_at_bisusa.com)
Date: 12/30/03
- Next message: LX-i: "Re: CoBOL moved to OO"
- Previous message: Donald Tees: "Re: CoBOL moved to OO"
- In reply to: Judson McClendon: "Re: Date manipulation"
- Next in thread: Francis ANDRE: "Re: Date manipulation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:49:29 -0600
Judson McClendon wrote:
> "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>>
>> Six invokes for a command used once in a program is nothing.
>> Decisions such as this should be made solely on maintenance
>> efficiency, not run-time efficiency.
>
> If that code is in a transaction routine that is called 1000 times a
> second,
> the overhead isn't 'nothing'. And what about turning over midnight
> after
> the first call and before the last call? Remember Murphy's Law. :-)
There's not much that CAN take place in 1 milli-second, but I understand
your point.
Still, coding for micro-efficiency is a pitiful waste of resources (it
should even be illegal).
- Next message: LX-i: "Re: CoBOL moved to OO"
- Previous message: Donald Tees: "Re: CoBOL moved to OO"
- In reply to: Judson McClendon: "Re: Date manipulation"
- Next in thread: Francis ANDRE: "Re: Date manipulation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|