Re: Locations suggest -- we're stupid

[Hans Aberg]

At 17:40 +0200 2002/01/12, Nikos Balkanas wrote:
>> >> Did you first, in the Flex source file main.c, check_options(), zip out
>> >>   if ( do_yylineno )
>> >>     /* This should really be "maintain_backup_tables = true" */
>> >>     reject_really_used = true;
>> >> recompile, and then do timings on a test with and without the %option
>> >yylineno?
>> >>
>> >> If so, what did the test show, on which computer?
>> >
>> >Nothing of the sort.
>>
>> So then remove that line, and the redo the timing:
>
>Definitely not. Read below.

The thing is that it was suggested to remove that line will be removed in
future versions of Flex. So therefore it is important in assessing the
quality of the future Flex feature.

>> The point is that on a modern computer system with paging, buffers, there
>> is no real way to ensure that those bottlenecks do not appear.
>
>There are no bottlenecks in blocking I/O. Everything is cummulative. Every
>little delay on top of what is necessary will count. And yes, there may be
>some way to do smt about these things. But it is not gonna do much good if
>the lexxer is slow.

Nobody argues that adding the feature in question causes a delay:

The question is really how significant this delay is relative the other
delays already cumulated in the IO & lexing. That is all that matters.

>KISS is short for Keep It Simple Stupid. I am not calling any names, just
>the principle. Time honored, proven right, time after time. Suddenly, I
>realized
>that the new generation might be missing a few cornerstones of
>programming (sigh!).

I think that ASS (Accurate Sophisticated Software) comes first; the those
of you so inclined may KISS that ASS.

What you are missing is that modern computers are more powerful, changing
the picture.

  Hans Aberg