3 ms·
> I am personally used to writing code where 100 CPU cycles matters. Not me, bucko. I'm used to writing code that, if it needs to go fast, I buy more CPU time
by falsedan 11y ago
> I am personally used to writing code where 100 CPU cycles matters.
Not me, bucko. I'm used to writing code that, if it needs to go fast, I buy more CPU time and run it in parallel.
- kuschku 11y agoAnd that’s when you discover that (a) electricity isn’t unlimited, (b) ressources aren’t unlimited, (c) money isn’t unlimited, and (d) maybe you should just save for the sake of efficiency.
- vinceguidry 11y agoa) and b) can be so cheap relative to the total cost of the application and / or the value that application produces that they might as well be unlimited. Essentially, if you are running into electricity / resource constraints on, say, an e-commerce website, then unless your design choices were absolutely hideous, then you are having a Very Good Problem. Many programmers can spend their entire careers on building and maintaining such apps. The infrastructure costs are outclassed by their salary by several orders of magnitude. A decent website costs millions to develop in total and hundreds monthly to host. It can bring in several million in revenue every year. All this and it's still a sideshow to the main business. A site I maintain does $3 million in business every year, whereas our retail partners do 7.
- kuschku 11y agoElectricity prices aren’t globally the same, in some regions in Europe they’re over $0.40/kWh. And renting servers from AWS can end up being more expensive than paying another dev and using dedicated systems.
- falsedan 11y agoI'm pointing out that a compiler & language designer probably has a different concept of inefficiencies than a webapp dev.
- pessimizer 11y agoI have to assume this means that you rewrite and refactor everything in order to make it amenable to parallelization.
- falsedan 11y agoyes, and that's not free
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]