|
I think you have some misperceptions. Those who write library functions for reliable compilers are not writing code to their needs -- they're writing code to YOUR needs. You also may not understand the implications of "longer" code. There is very often a tradeoff between code size and speed. That's why there's inlining. That's why your good compiler offers you the choice between speed and size optimization. I seriously doubt that you could write a library function that came within 20% of the effectiveness of the function that ships with your compiler. I know what resource starvation is (as in memory that costs $1000 per megabyte or more). There is obviously a maximum bang for minimum bucks. Just as obviously, it moves as the technology changes. A tiny minority of programmers will be working on systems that require the ultimate in performance and efficiency. One cannot afford to dedicate expensive programmers to tasks that aren't cost-effective. One way to achieve higher performance IS through hardware. Why do you think they have separate graphics devices? Cache? Numeric co-processors? You have no real earthly idea about the wrong direction or the right direction. For the sake of your mental outlook, I hope you get one of those tiny percentage of the jobs that require cutting-edge performance regardless of cost.
|