3 ms·

I would make an opposite point: software that's distinctly faster than its peers impresses users not only as faster but also as generally higher-quality in ways

by gruseom 17y ago

I would make an opposite point: software that's distinctly faster than its peers impresses users not only as faster but also as generally higher-quality in ways one would not think had anything to do with performance. Users are sensitive to tiny differences in speed, much tinier than most software developers consider significant. For example, there have been many studies showing dramatic drop-offs in web usage with what seem like micro-differences in response times. A good example is how Chrome is gaining rapidly in market share primarily by being more responsive. There was a fascinating post recently on a political blog I read where the author was talking about switching to Chrome even though he couldn't quite figure out why. I read it as an example of the psychological spill-over effect of performance. (Edit: here it is: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/12/the_case_for_mind_control.php http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/12/the_case_f.... Well worth reading for anyone interested in the psychology of software.) It's a fascinating conundrum that while hardware has gotten orders of magnitude faster, software has remained sluggish. I know it's fashionable to explain this by saying "but software is doing orders of magnitude more than it used to", but I think this is only a partial explanation; it's also the case that we're leaving huge amounts on the table because of the way we write code. I used to believe in the dream of an ideal high-level language abstracted away from the hardware altogether. That now seems to me a harmful delusion. What we need is a better way to combine high-level constructs with low-level ones. This in turn (veering wildly off on a tangent here...) explains the persistent appeal of C++ despite its manifest perversity. No other mainstream language is even in that game.

evanrmurphy 17y ago
Thanks for sharing that article. The Chrome example is definitely relevant and compelling. No doubt the case is strong case for better performance improving overall perception of the software by the user. My question though is, is there really nothing to be said for slowness anywhere? Nothing for the occasional well-placed delay? Nothing for dramatic pause? Were all those accumulated hours of my childhood waiting at loading screens on the PlayStation 1 really for nought?
- davidcuddeback 17y ago
  I suppose an algorithm that takes a little longer to run might make the user think that the software is doing something more advanced, but that would only apply when the software leaves room for the user to make qualitative judgements about the answer. Take the filters in photo editing software for example. In Photoshop, you can apply many types of filters. Let's say you apply a noise-reduction filter in Photoshop and it takes 3 seconds to run, then you switch to the Gimp and apply a noise-reduction filter and it runs instantaneously. [1] The slowness may lead users to believe that Photoshop's algorithm is more advanced. Of course, this may partially be due to branding. Photoshop is the $1000 professional photo-editing software, whereas the Gimp is free editing software put together by hackers. This ties it to your analogy in the original post. Now if the situation were reversed, and Photoshop's algorithm ran faster than the Gimp's, I suspect it would be less likely for people to believe that the Gimp's algorithm is more advanced. This may work for a noise-reduction algorithm, because there is no one correct answer. People may believe that the microscopic differences in the pixels represent a difference in quality. Obviously, if you compare two algorithms that are supposed to compute an answer for which there is an oracle (e.g., Fibonacci or factorial), then slowness is just slowness. If I write a slow implementation of fib(n) and you write a fast one, people will know yours is better because it's faster and there's no ambiguity in the answer that could allow room for people to believe that mine is "more advanced." Of course, this is just me speculating. I don't know of anyone that's conducted research on this. [1] This is hypothetical. I know nothing about the performance differences between Photoshop and the Gimp.
evanrmurphy 17y ago
I used to believe in the dream of an ideal high-level language abstracted away from the hardware altogether. That now seems to me a harmful delusion. Abstraction to the point of losing all access to lower-level details is restrictive, but having processes that handle them for you automatically is very useful. Isn't it great that compilers do a good enough job most of the time that we don't have to write binaries for each architecture by hand?

by gruseom 17y ago

evanrmurphy 17y ago

Thanks for sharing that article. The Chrome example is definitely relevant and compelling. No doubt the case is strong case for better performance improving overall perception of the software by the user. My question though is, is there really nothing to be said for slowness anywhere? Nothing for the occasional well-placed delay? Nothing for dramatic pause? Were all those accumulated hours of my childhood waiting at loading screens on the PlayStation 1 really for nought?

davidcuddeback 17y ago
I suppose an algorithm that takes a little longer to run might make the user think that the software is doing something more advanced, but that would only apply when the software leaves room for the user to make qualitative judgements about the answer. Take the filters in photo editing software for example. In Photoshop, you can apply many types of filters. Let's say you apply a noise-reduction filter in Photoshop and it takes 3 seconds to run, then you switch to the Gimp and apply a noise-reduction filter and it runs instantaneously. [1] The slowness may lead users to believe that Photoshop's algorithm is more advanced. Of course, this may partially be due to branding. Photoshop is the $1000 professional photo-editing software, whereas the Gimp is free editing software put together by hackers. This ties it to your analogy in the original post. Now if the situation were reversed, and Photoshop's algorithm ran faster than the Gimp's, I suspect it would be less likely for people to believe that the Gimp's algorithm is more advanced. This may work for a noise-reduction algorithm, because there is no one correct answer. People may believe that the microscopic differences in the pixels represent a difference in quality. Obviously, if you compare two algorithms that are supposed to compute an answer for which there is an oracle (e.g., Fibonacci or factorial), then slowness is just slowness. If I write a slow implementation of fib(n) and you write a fast one, people will know yours is better because it's faster and there's no ambiguity in the answer that could allow room for people to believe that mine is "more advanced." Of course, this is just me speculating. I don't know of anyone that's conducted research on this. [1] This is hypothetical. I know nothing about the performance differences between Photoshop and the Gimp.

evanrmurphy 17y ago

I used to believe in the dream of an ideal high-level language abstracted away from the hardware altogether. That now seems to me a harmful delusion. Abstraction to the point of losing all access to lower-level details is restrictive, but having processes that handle them for you automatically is very useful. Isn't it great that compilers do a good enough job most of the time that we don't have to write binaries for each architecture by hand?