A car is not a living thing for many reasons. First, almost all living things need oxygen to survive. A car does not need oxygen; it does not require respiration. Secondly, all living things need water. Sure, you can wash a car with water, but it does not need water to run. Cars need a source of fuel. All living things also contribute to the food chain in some way. They are a part of the circle of life. Cars are not. Plants, animals, bacteria, etc., are included in the food chain and cars have no place on the food chain at all. In order for something to be a living thing, it needs water and (generally) oxygen to survive. Cars do not need to "survive."
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