4 ms·
I don't think more powerful tools are the solution here. The problems and solution are obvious. The root problem is that many "product" teams will take any 10x
by ploxiln 9y ago
I don't think more powerful tools are the solution here. The problems and solution are obvious. The root problem is that many "product" teams will take any 10x improvement from tooling and adapt by being 10x more inefficient. Because they can.
Hardware (laptops, phones), and browsers js and rendering engines, are all 10x faster than they were 10 years ago, giving 100x to 1000x overall speedup. Think about that, it is truly incredible. But web pages are also 100x larger and less efficient than 10 years ago. This is absolutely not justified by productivity increases. This is just how the world / humans seem to work.
- T-hawk 9y ago"Work expands to fill the time allocated for its completion." This holds true for computer scripts executing a workload as well.
- ryandrake 9y agoDevelopers tend to over time expand their programs to fill available memory and take up available CPU, too. My currently open text editor's memory footprint is apparently 36.6MB, and it is displaying a single file composed of ~1000 characters.
- lokedhs 9y agoThe scary thing is that I actually consider that to be remarkably small. My current Emacs session (recently opened) is just over 200 MB is size. And Emacs isn't even considered a hog anymore compared to the real hogs like Atom. Remember when Emacs meant Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping?