The "no gc" crowd

[Brad Roberts]

On 10/8/13 10:00 AM, Dicebot wrote:
>
> proper performance

I apologize for picking out your post, Dicebot, as the illustrative example, but I see this pop up 
in various discussion and I've been meaning to comment on it for a while.

Please stop using words like 'proper', 'real', and other similar terms to describe a requirement. 
It's a horrible specifier and adds no useful detail.

It tends to needlessly setup the convarsation as confrontational or adversarial and implies that 
anyone that disagrees is wrong or not working on a real system.  There's lots of cases where pushing 
to the very edge of bleeding isn't actually required.

Thanks,
Brad