5 ms·
> At least now the code that "seems to work" usually does, Some of that may come down to better hardware. It's possible to be incredibly naive with today's har
by mschaef 10y ago
> At least now the code that "seems to work" usually does,
Some of that may come down to better hardware. It's possible to be incredibly naive with today's hardware and still get results that would've taken high level engineering 20 years ago.
Edit: This is down-modded, but it's fundamentally good news. Increases in our capacity to do productive work with these machines come from both software and hardware improvements. Not sure what else you'd expect.
- sgift 10y ago> Edit: This is down-modded, but it's fundamentally good news. Increases in our capacity to do productive work with these machines come from both software and hardware improvements. Not sure what else you'd expect. The downvotes are probably from the realization that this is good and sad news at the same time. On the one side, it is good news because many software projects wouldn't have been realized if you couldn't be that naive, on the other side who knows what would be possible with a bit more "discipline" (for lack of a better word)
- kpil 10y agoI think you could leak a little 20 years ago too, or use unnecessary amounts of memory - in most cases. It's just a few applications and parts of applications that really are resource constrained and critical enough to really matter...
- mcguire 10y agoCertainly. All those Unix-style filter programs had little need to be too careful since they didn't run for long. On the other hand, anyone know if the leak in the X server ever got fixed? IIRC, it was small enough that it was only a problem running the server for months on a resource constrained machine.