getting rid of data movement instructions

[Peter Hansen]

Mats Wichmann wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2001 11:20:59 +0200, "Alex Martelli"
> <aleaxit at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> :"Tim Peters" <tim.one at home.com> wrote in message
> :news:mailman.998259150.17466.python-list at python.org...
> :    ...
> :> This reminds me of the definition of a supercomputer commonly heard in the
> :> 80s:  a supercomputer is a box that turns your CPU-bound problem into an
> :> I/O-bound problem.  IOW-- and take this to heart! --no matter what you
> :> optimize, if you do a good job, one consequence is that "the bottleneck"
> :> moves to something you weren't even thinking about.  Or, as Gordon Bell's
> :> First Law of supercomputer design put it, Everything Counts.
> :
> :Hmmm, isn't the numeric expression of this called Amdahl's Law?
> 
> Yeah, but it's more fun to quote Gerry Weinberg: "If you fix problem
> #1, #2 gets a promotion".

Also re-expressed as one of the principles of Goldratt's
"Theory of Constraints".

5. Don't let INERTIA become the system's constraint. Once 
you have "broken" a constraint, go back to Step One!

(see http://www.constraintsmanagement.com/history/ )