6 ms·

...a whole 2-3 seconds! Sometimes I think that comments like these arise out of not having experienced text-only rendering at 300 baud... I know that's a gene

by cr0sh 10y ago

...a whole 2-3 seconds! Sometimes I think that comments like these arise out of not having experienced text-only rendering at 300 baud... I know that's a generalization, and most likely unfair - but damn, today's phones, to this old man, are pocket super-computers (for that matter from my vantage point, an Arduino is a wonder, and a RasPi is utterly amazing)!

pyre 10y ago
> Sometimes I think that comments like these arise out of not having experienced text-only rendering at 300 baud... At the same time, we are now living in the future. With "pocket super-computers" that are more powerful than the Crays that existed when you were waiting on 300 baud text rendering, yet we are using 13% of that power just to render a blinking cursor? Does that not seem like we haven't made as much progress as we should have?
TeMPOraL 10y ago
That's totally unfair. You should compare it to startup time of Word from, I don't know, 10 - 20 years ago. Around the same time (if not less), and Google Docs still can't match the features of old Words. The point being, for the past decade or two, we've been burning all hardware performance improvements on things that are neither visible to user, nor enable them to do more with their computer. Surely, there must be ways of spending those CPU cycles and RAM bytes on things that are actually useful and enable people to do more / better / faster work.
- ballenf 10y ago
  On a per-application basis, you are probably correct. But if the additionally abstraction layers allow there to be greater diversity of applications and more tools for more niche cases because development is easier and/or faster, then that is directly immediately beneficial to the end user. Not to mention faster design iteration, implementation of new features etc.
  - dom0 10y ago
    > On a per-application basis, you are probably correct. But if the additionally abstraction layers allow ... Windows 7 boots in approx. 5 seconds to the desktop (if no password is set), and stuff like Word or Visio starts instantaneously. Web applications on the very same computer are a whole different story. Let's just acknowledge that SaaS is not and never was about any kind of benefits for the user or customer, but just about either centralising resources and services back to the vendor's control and/or increasing money extraction.
    - sqeaky 10y ago
      I have never seen word open instantly. When I do it there is always a second or two for teh obnoxious splash screen, then often 10 to 15 seconds waiting for it to do whatever. Notepad++, yeah, that opens nearly instantly. I mostly use Ubuntu and there Libreoffice still has a stupid splash screen. After that though the amount of time is too small for me to count.
  - sedachv 10y ago
    > But if the additionally abstraction layers allow there to be greater diversity of applications and more tools for more niche cases because development is easier and/or faster Please try to find a single example where this is true. Niche cases and greater diversity all come from a lot of work keeping runtimes up to date and APIs backward-compatible. This is only because of Free Software. Trying to credit this to "abstraction layers" is insulting to all of the programmers working on Free Software libraries, compilers, runtimes and operating systems.
    - ballenf 10y ago
      What I'm suggesting is that, e.g., there are more Slack, Atom, VS Code, (and those are just Electron apps) etc. and/or those apps have more features because of the speed of development and iteration afforded by these inefficient abstraction layers. So, I can't give a specific example but am instead pointing at the diverse ecosystem of applications and rich functionality. It's logically impossible for me to prove that these apps wouldn't exist without inefficient abstraction layers. It's my supposition, and the developers who write electron apps would probably agree.
- Pharylon 10y ago
  Why should he compare it to Word? Was it a cloud-based product that synced all files between multiple machines of radically different form-factors from PCs to phones? No? Google Docs uses the Internet, so did anything on an old modem. Word didn't (especially 20 years ago).
  - throwaway2048 10y ago
    So word processors have to be slow to use the network? I'm not sure your arguement makes any sense.
eltoozero 10y ago
I can't remember the stand-up routine, but the punchline applies: "10secs! I was supposed to be at work 15 seconds ago!"
- nissimk 10y ago
  thanks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HozBKiWGsQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HozBKiWGsQ

by cr0sh 10y ago

pyre 10y ago

> Sometimes I think that comments like these arise out of not having experienced text-only rendering at 300 baud... At the same time, we are now living in the future. With "pocket super-computers" that are more powerful than the Crays that existed when you were waiting on 300 baud text rendering, yet we are using 13% of that power just to render a blinking cursor? Does that not seem like we haven't made as much progress as we should have?

TeMPOraL 10y ago

That's totally unfair. You should compare it to startup time of Word from, I don't know, 10 - 20 years ago. Around the same time (if not less), and Google Docs still can't match the features of old Words. The point being, for the past decade or two, we've been burning all hardware performance improvements on things that are neither visible to user, nor enable them to do more with their computer. Surely, there must be ways of spending those CPU cycles and RAM bytes on things that are actually useful and enable people to do more / better / faster work.

ballenf 10y ago
On a per-application basis, you are probably correct. But if the additionally abstraction layers allow there to be greater diversity of applications and more tools for more niche cases because development is easier and/or faster, then that is directly immediately beneficial to the end user. Not to mention faster design iteration, implementation of new features etc.
- dom0 10y ago
  > On a per-application basis, you are probably correct. But if the additionally abstraction layers allow ... Windows 7 boots in approx. 5 seconds to the desktop (if no password is set), and stuff like Word or Visio starts instantaneously. Web applications on the very same computer are a whole different story. Let's just acknowledge that SaaS is not and never was about any kind of benefits for the user or customer, but just about either centralising resources and services back to the vendor's control and/or increasing money extraction.
  - sqeaky 10y ago
    I have never seen word open instantly. When I do it there is always a second or two for teh obnoxious splash screen, then often 10 to 15 seconds waiting for it to do whatever. Notepad++, yeah, that opens nearly instantly. I mostly use Ubuntu and there Libreoffice still has a stupid splash screen. After that though the amount of time is too small for me to count.
- sedachv 10y ago
  > But if the additionally abstraction layers allow there to be greater diversity of applications and more tools for more niche cases because development is easier and/or faster Please try to find a single example where this is true. Niche cases and greater diversity all come from a lot of work keeping runtimes up to date and APIs backward-compatible. This is only because of Free Software. Trying to credit this to "abstraction layers" is insulting to all of the programmers working on Free Software libraries, compilers, runtimes and operating systems.
  - ballenf 10y ago
    What I'm suggesting is that, e.g., there are more Slack, Atom, VS Code, (and those are just Electron apps) etc. and/or those apps have more features because of the speed of development and iteration afforded by these inefficient abstraction layers. So, I can't give a specific example but am instead pointing at the diverse ecosystem of applications and rich functionality. It's logically impossible for me to prove that these apps wouldn't exist without inefficient abstraction layers. It's my supposition, and the developers who write electron apps would probably agree.
Pharylon 10y ago
Why should he compare it to Word? Was it a cloud-based product that synced all files between multiple machines of radically different form-factors from PCs to phones? No? Google Docs uses the Internet, so did anything on an old modem. Word didn't (especially 20 years ago).
- throwaway2048 10y ago
  So word processors have to be slow to use the network? I'm not sure your arguement makes any sense.

eltoozero 10y ago

I can't remember the stand-up routine, but the punchline applies: "10secs! I was supposed to be at work 15 seconds ago!"

nissimk 10y ago
thanks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HozBKiWGsQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HozBKiWGsQ