Re: Writing bulletproof code
From: Gerry Quinn (gerryq_at_indigo.ie)
Date: 01/06/04
- Next message: hantheman: "Re: complexity of programming languages"
- Previous message: Gerry Quinn: "Re: Writing bulletproof code"
- In reply to: Malcolm: "Re: Writing bulletproof code"
- Next in thread: Malcolm: "Re: Writing bulletproof code"
- Reply: Malcolm: "Re: Writing bulletproof code"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 11:57:24 GMT
In article <btcl24$h7l$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Malcolm"
<malcolm@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>"Richard Heathfield" <dontmail@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
>> On the contrary, I consider correctness to be more important than
>> efficiency. If you think that I don't, then you have misunderstood me.
>>
>And you call yourself a games programmer?
>
>Sometimes correctness is paramount. Normally we make some compromises (such
>as storing real variables in 8 bytes) in the interests of efficiency. In
>games we accept almost any quick and dirty result in the interests of
>efficiency. After all, at the end of the day we're only setting pixels on
>the screen. Who cares if that Laura is a pixel out?
"Correctness" for Laura in this context means that her image is within a
visually acceptable zone on screen. If Laura's maximum user-controlled
jump won't get her across the chasm, however, the program is incorrect,
and fixing this is more important than efficiency.
- Gerry Quinn
- Next message: hantheman: "Re: complexity of programming languages"
- Previous message: Gerry Quinn: "Re: Writing bulletproof code"
- In reply to: Malcolm: "Re: Writing bulletproof code"
- Next in thread: Malcolm: "Re: Writing bulletproof code"
- Reply: Malcolm: "Re: Writing bulletproof code"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|