Skip to content
loading...

re: Does your website really need to be larger than Windows 95? VIEW POST

TOP OF THREAD FULL DISCUSSION
re: Fair point, though it seems that for most software performance is not taken into account at all anymore, which is not a trade-off. And I hope you...

Yeah, I do agree on the general point, that we should also focus on performance, and not do pointless/suboptimal things when it takes little or no extra effort to do things better.

And indeed, wasted computational resources have an ecological cost, particularly when we're dealing with calculation-intensive tasks like simulations on supercomputers and stuff like bitcoin (though there, the inefficiency is supposedly a feature). For the most part though, this kind of discussion tends to resolve around (clever) low-level micro-optimizations, while the need for (more transparent) architectural optimizations are left out of the discussion.

Believe me, I'm the last person to promote useless micro-optimizations. A while ago I posted an example of a disassembly in a comment here, illustrating that any reasonable C compiler will perform them (and many others that are much harder to do by hand) anyway, so one should always strife for clarity in the code first.

I do however take objection to some recent trends in the industry, especially in regard to technology and framework choices, since I believe that many of them are not at all motivated by needs, but by the availability of cheap and easily replaceable labor.

Overall I think we're on the same page, thanks for a productive discussion and have a nice day. :-)

Yes, I think we're in agreement here, on both the topic and the productive discussion, so a nice day to you as well :-).

code of conduct - report abuse