AVR-Chat

I think we're stretching the analogy a bit far here!  Programming is all
about generating reusable code, reliably and quickly.  To achieve this one
is always working at some level of abstraction, for some applications you
need to work at a lower level, for others you can work at a higher.  Doing
this allows one to focus on the application rather than the mechanics.
Modern compilers are pretty darn good at optimising so you can leave the job
to them, maybe not as good as a hand built custom bit of code, but plenty
good enough. 

To use the car analogy: Early cars had manual chokes, you advanced or
retarded the ignition manually and needed to tweak the carburettor settings
frequently.  Now it's controlled by an onboard MCU that does that for you so
you can concentrate on driving - it's better at it too. Someone has to know
about how the fuel and air mix and how to optimize it, but the driver need
not.  Knowing how it works can help you diagnose problems and is good for
your soul, but unnecessary for general driving. 

But I do change my own oil - because I can and it's quicker and cheaper. 


Q


-----Original Message-----
From: upand_at_them [mailto:upand_at_them@yahoo.com] 
Sent: March 16, 2004 1:51 PM
To: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [AVR-Chat] Re: AVR Compiler: which is the best


> Now days I just take the car to a XX
> minute oil change and pay $25 to have it done. One - I have more
> disposable income then in my younger years, Two - Time, I would
> rather be working at my profession, electronics tech, than mechanic 
> work. Oh, I don't mind working on cars but if I had a choice...
> This save me time, time that I can spend golfing, fishing, playing 
> with my grandchildren

Sure, the argument makes sense.

But do you really save time doing it this way?  I sure don't.  The 
amount of time I would spend taking my car somewhere, waiting for it 
to be worked on, and then driving it home is at least twice the 
amount it takes for me to do it myself.

Mike





 
Yahoo! Groups Links