The ancient Greeks hypothesized that all physical structures were made up of smaller particles too small to detect with the human eye. In the early 19th century, scientist John Dalton refined the Greek model and defined atoms as the fundamental building blocks of nature. Nearly a century later, J.J. Thomson discovered that atoms contained electrons. He theorized that negatively charged electrons and other positively charged particles floated around inside an atom’s hard shell, like raisins in “plum pudding.” In 1911, Ernest Rutherford argued that an atom’s positive charge must be a result of an atomic nucleus and that electrons orbit the nucleus like planets around the sun. Just a few years later, Niels Bohr expanded Rutherford’s model introduced the idea that electrons orbit the atomic nucleus at varying energy levels. Bohr’s ideas inform the work of today’s scientists as they study the mysteries of quantum mechanics and how to harness nuclear energy.
As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Comments
Post a Comment