3 ms·

Present day programs aren't optimized because they don't have to be. No one needs to gain a competitive advantage by squeezing the last bit of performance out

Present day programs aren't optimized because they don't have to be. No one needs to gain a competitive advantage by squeezing the last bit of performance out of hardware because for a long time we've had steadily increasing performance levels and backward compatibility. Applications which need more performance than the present level of hardware can deliver so badly that they need to optimize to that level are very rare. That's why Windows is the size it is nowadays... it's optimized for delivering the same user experience on all hardware, compatibility, language flexibility, manageability and user friendliness (don't laugh) instead of performance. It essentially performs the same function that Windows 3.1 did, but it does it on a far greater variety of hardware running a far larger assortment of software. It's bigger and slower than it could be, but there are always trade-offs, and Microsoft hasn't really had any competition in operating systems for decades... Linux and variants have their place, but it's not on the desktop for most people, at least at the moment.

slowhand09 7y ago
I would disagree with the "they don't need to be" stmt. Many photographers and artist have legit gripes in the lengthy time many filters and transforms take in post processing. Many of these are recipes that are applied en-masse to all files in a directory.
- Accujack 7y ago
  Well, I was obviously generalizing, not stating that no programs anywhere need to run faster. However, taking your example, the filters can't really be optimized because they're applications run on top of a bloated operating system which isn't optimized for the reasons I mentioned. Writing a highly optimized program to run directly on the hardware of a given machine would speed up filters tremendously but also be a trade-off in terms of manageability.
codesushi42 7y ago
I disagree. Software nowadays is atrocious because it's not optimized. It's just that average users have become more accepting of long load times and bloat. Here's an example. In the mid to late 90s, gamers would complain a lot about load times for CD ROM games. For some gamers, the load times were a deal breaker. This was one reason Nintendo could get away with using cartridges on the N64. Fast forward to the present, and load times for many mainstream games is FAR worse than the 1-2x speed CD based consoles of the 90s. And a lot of this is due to sloppy, unoptimized code, e.g. loading assets. And yet no one bats an eye. Another example is the web. There are so many garbage, unoptimized sites that load on my smartphone as if I were on dial up (I'm looking at you, Gawker). Yes, those pages contain a lot more multimedia content nowadays, but they still load at the same rate as a typical page in the 90s would have on dial up. And with Moore's Law now ending (ended?), optimization may come back in vogue.
- bitwize 7y ago
  The N64 lost its console generation and solidified Sony as the market leader, in part because it used cartridges while everyone else used CD-ROMs. Way to choose an example that disproves the very point you were trying to make. As for load times today, most modern games are implemented as scripts and assets for one of the big engines, usually Unreal or Unity. It's hard enough to manage all the assets that go into a modern game; an optimized loader would just make wrangling them all even more difficult.
  - codesushi42 7y ago
    The N64 lost its console generation and solidified Sony as the market leader, in part because it used cartridges while everyone else used CD-ROMs. Way to choose an example that disproves the very point you were trying to make. Yes, I realize that. But the point was that poor decision was not enough to kill it, and the N64 was still a commercial success. A lot of gamers even preferred cartridges back then because of they didn't require load time. As for load times today, most modern games are implemented as scripts and assets for one of the big engines, usually Unreal or Unity. It's hard enough to manage all the assets that go into a modern game; an optimized loader would just make wrangling them all even more difficult. That's not a real reason to not optimize.
pjmlp 7y ago
FOSS devs embracing Electron also does wonders for user expectations.

slowhand09 7y ago

I would disagree with the "they don't need to be" stmt. Many photographers and artist have legit gripes in the lengthy time many filters and transforms take in post processing. Many of these are recipes that are applied en-masse to all files in a directory.

Accujack 7y ago
Well, I was obviously generalizing, not stating that no programs anywhere need to run faster. However, taking your example, the filters can't really be optimized because they're applications run on top of a bloated operating system which isn't optimized for the reasons I mentioned. Writing a highly optimized program to run directly on the hardware of a given machine would speed up filters tremendously but also be a trade-off in terms of manageability.

codesushi42 7y ago

I disagree. Software nowadays is atrocious because it's not optimized. It's just that average users have become more accepting of long load times and bloat. Here's an example. In the mid to late 90s, gamers would complain a lot about load times for CD ROM games. For some gamers, the load times were a deal breaker. This was one reason Nintendo could get away with using cartridges on the N64. Fast forward to the present, and load times for many mainstream games is FAR worse than the 1-2x speed CD based consoles of the 90s. And a lot of this is due to sloppy, unoptimized code, e.g. loading assets. And yet no one bats an eye. Another example is the web. There are so many garbage, unoptimized sites that load on my smartphone as if I were on dial up (I'm looking at you, Gawker). Yes, those pages contain a lot more multimedia content nowadays, but they still load at the same rate as a typical page in the 90s would have on dial up. And with Moore's Law now ending (ended?), optimization may come back in vogue.

bitwize 7y ago
The N64 lost its console generation and solidified Sony as the market leader, in part because it used cartridges while everyone else used CD-ROMs. Way to choose an example that disproves the very point you were trying to make. As for load times today, most modern games are implemented as scripts and assets for one of the big engines, usually Unreal or Unity. It's hard enough to manage all the assets that go into a modern game; an optimized loader would just make wrangling them all even more difficult.
- codesushi42 7y ago
  The N64 lost its console generation and solidified Sony as the market leader, in part because it used cartridges while everyone else used CD-ROMs. Way to choose an example that disproves the very point you were trying to make. Yes, I realize that. But the point was that poor decision was not enough to kill it, and the N64 was still a commercial success. A lot of gamers even preferred cartridges back then because of they didn't require load time. As for load times today, most modern games are implemented as scripts and assets for one of the big engines, usually Unreal or Unity. It's hard enough to manage all the assets that go into a modern game; an optimized loader would just make wrangling them all even more difficult. That's not a real reason to not optimize.

pjmlp 7y ago

FOSS devs embracing Electron also does wonders for user expectations.