2 ms·
I am with you on everything but the complaint about > my computer is a Core 2 Duo from 2007 or so with 4 gb of ram That's a super freaking powerful machine, y
by srean 10y ago
I am with you on everything but the complaint about
> my computer is a Core 2 Duo from 2007 or so with 4 gb of ram
That's a super freaking powerful machine, you have to be efficient in your programs and good on your algorithms. My machine was a Pentium III 800MB RAM for the longest time. There is a lot you can do on that. Use algorithms that need to load data in chunks, exploit memory mapping and generate native code if you can. They go a long way, likely much further than some may think.
- Declanomous 10y agoI can make my programs work, but it's not a good allocation of resources. Two hours of my time costs as much as that computer. The computer that would allow me to do my job with the most efficacy is equivalent in cost to about 10 hours of my time. The question is whether the better computer save more than 8 hours over the course of a year? The answer is yes. The amount of time it takes to load stuff in from the disk slows down programs immensely. If my computer had 16 gb of memory I'd be able to store and manipulate all my data in memory. That's not even counting how much time is wasted optimizing code that I run rarely. That time is much better spent doing other things.