Ali,

>
> We were worked in heavy conditions in old days,
> slower CPUs ( a few mhz), limited RAM (at KB level), DISK(some MB),
> etc resources.
> Today there is GHZ machines, GB, TB DISCs, GB RAMs, etc..
> This shouldn't be to create unawered programmers.
> Programming is not a job for the people hope to find a job.
> When i ask this question, most of programmers start to write
> some program with different loop versios without any design or think.
> computers as successful as their programmers.
>

This is the point where I think you are wrong.
When you ask a programmer to add the numbers from 1 to 100 and he comes up with some kind of loop
and you don't value that because of him/her not appreciating Mr. Gauss' formula, I think he/she is
much more on the right track than you with your limited formula.
Why is that:
In the early days of programming, coders were valued by the amount of code they produced. That
changed pretty quickly to "amount of *reusable* code". Translated to the problem at hand, when the
problem is further extended to e.g. "add the numbers from 1 to 100 but only odd ones" or "add the
numbers from 1 to 100 but not the ones that can be divided by 3", you and your formula are left in
the dark, you would have to dispose your formula and start anew with... a loop, whereas the
programmer who started with the loop just has to modify something thats already there.

The same goes for todays level of technology, I'd sack anyone who would spend to days on finetuning
an algorithm in assembler instead of using something already available in Delphi just for the sake
of letting the user wait for 2,32 seconds instead of 2,42 seconds.

Don't know who said this by I still remember:

Perfection is slow motion,
Fantasy the speed of light
How fast where you today...?


Florian