What about the designer who has never discovered to create effective value in the first place? How does one learn how to properly apply an application? Unfortunately, institutions these days mostly take the mind-set that if you choose a good formula; you don't have to fear about the execution of that formula. Far too many students come out of their data components and methods courses with the mind-set that if you can only accomplish a continuous (that is, O(1)) performance enhancement, you've really obtained nothing at all, and that efforts at enhancement are a pointless.
Advances in computer structure have amplified this problem--for example, you might listen to a designer say, "If this program needs to be a little faster, just wait a year or so and CPUs will be twice as fast; there's no need to fear about it." And this mind-set, probably more than any other, is why program performance doesn't keep speed with CPU performance.
With every new program, the designer creates the program more slowly than it ought to run, on whatever current CPU they're using, know that upcoming CPU performance increases will fix their problems. Of course, by time the CPUs are quick enough to perform their program, the designer has "enhanced" the program, and is now based on yet another upcoming edition of the CPU. The pattern repeat almost constantly, with CPU performance never really capturing up with the requirements of the program, until finally, the programs life comes to an end and the designer starts the pattern over with a different program.
The truth is, it is possible to create program that completes properly on modern processor chips. Developers were doing excellent achievements with program a long time ago when their applications were running on eight-bit 5MHz 8088 PCs; the same techniques they used to squash every last bit of performance out of those low-end CPUs provides the key to high-performance applications these days. So, how did they accomplish reasonable performance on such low-end processors? The answer is not a secret--they recognized how the actual components managed and they had written their value accordingly. That same knowledge, of the actual components, is the key to writing effective program these days.
Often, you'll listen to old-time programmers make the thoughts that truly effective program is published in set up terminology. However, the purpose such program is effective isn't because the execution terminology imparts some wonderful performance qualities to that program -- it's perfectly possible to create ineffective program in set up terminology. No, the real purpose set up terminology applications tend to be more effective than applications published in other dialects is because set up terminology causes the designer to consider how the actual components performs with each device instructions they create. And this is the key to learning how to create effective value -- keeping one's eye on the low-level abilities of it.