> Given how cheap CPU cycles are, how expensive developers are and that faster code often means more 'unsafe' code, 97% of the time it's more economic to just h

> Given how cheap CPU cycles are, how expensive developers are and that faster code often means more 'unsafe' code, 97% of the time it's more economic to just have the resource-greedy software. I agree. I run sloccount in my build system. It gives a cost for manpower. For example: Total Physical (SLOC) = 6,944 Development (Person-Months) = 18.36 Schedule Estimate (Months) = 7.55 Estimated Average Number of Developers = 2.43 Estimated Cost to Develop = $ 206,696 http://www.dwheeler.com/sloccount/ http://www.dwheeler.com/sloccount/ http://vmorgulys.github.io/stackcity/sloccount.html http://vmorgulys.github.io/stackcity/sloccount.html We should count the energy spent by inefficient programs (multiply the number of devices). It could balance that equation as the Moore's Law is ending. I guess Debian (or another distro) if more energy-efficient than Windows (or Android). Edit: beautified sloccount output