Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 23:02:31 +0000 From: Daniela <dgw@liwest.at> To: Jim Zajkowski <jim@jimz.net>, freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Most wanted Message-ID: <200403052302.31896.dgw@liwest.at> In-Reply-To: <2EAEEFC4-6EEE-11D8-AE09-000A95DA58FE@jimz.net> References: <Pine.LNX.4.43.0403011839470.3269-100000@pilchuck.reedmedia.net> <200403052226.19659.dgw@liwest.at> <2EAEEFC4-6EEE-11D8-AE09-000A95DA58FE@jimz.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 05 March 2004 21:43, Jim Zajkowski wrote: > On Mar 5, 2004, at 5:26 PM, Daniela wrote: > > These are areas where optimization is critical, because if two > > programs deliver equal quality, professionals will always choose the > > one that is much faster than the other. > > Almost always, substantial speed gains in e.g. MPEG compression come > from algorithmic advances and not by switching to assembly. I know. I love to do all kind of optimization, including algorithm improvements. But I'm so into low-level programming, that it's (sometimes) easier for me to code in ASM than in C. > Professionals also prefer tools that work the way they do, which is why > most professional tools have steep learning curves -- because they're > made to be efficient, not accessible. Final Cut Pro, Photoshop, and > even UNIX have difficult interfaces for beginners but efficient > interfaces for seasoned users. Word, on the other hand, has a > difficult interface for everyone. Yes, that's true. While I would not yet call myself a seasoned user, I think shell navigation is more efficient than that graphical stuff, but newbies disagree with me.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200403052302.31896.dgw>