On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Robert Klemme
<shortcutter / googlemail.com> wrote:
> 2008/10/23 Nit Khair <sentinel.2001 / gmx.com>:
>
>> So my code and the user of the library should have the least code to
>> write, and of course it has to be simple and clear, while at the same
>> time the simplicity should not rob the user of power/customizability
>> etc.
>> Shall keep the above in mind. (sorry for not being as concise as you ;-)
>> )
>
> I'd add that simplicity for the user of the lib is more important than
> simplicity for the implementer of the lib.
And it might be one of the rare occasion where performance counts.

As an example I once submitted an *ugly* patch using each_with_index
instead of inject to Factes which made a
method which was just elegant ugly, but it gained 10% of performance.
The maintainer judged that my code was still readable enough to accept
my patch because the method might be heavily used.No one would ever
consider changing
this method in an application unless performance was not good enough.

This just to underline how important Robert's point is.
Robert
-- 
C'est vٔitablement utile puisque c'est joli.

Antoine de Saint Exupٔy