Ah, but does Travis kill Eckels? We only know that the final “sound of thunder” is probably a gunshot. Travis could kill Eckels. Or he could kill himself. Obviously, Eckels accidentally changes the future when he steps off the path and onto a butterfly. He has been told the rules and the need for them to be followed. But the dinosaur so terrifies him, that he is lucky enough to even make it back to safety of the time machine. The group cannot go back and repair the damage he has done. And now people have to live with a dictator as a president, instead of a compassionate leader. Someone has to pay the price for the mistake. If Travis kills Eckels, he’s issuing the ultimate penalty for the man’s blunder. If Travis kills himself, he won’t have to live under this new regime, and he won’t have to answer to authorities about the fault of Time Safari to use time travel wisely. But Eckels, in turn, would have to live with his mistake. Which fate would be worse?
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