5 ms·

I'd like developer laptops to max out at 2 GB of RAM and have really slow single-core processors. Then I wouldn't be subjected to software written for machines

I'd like developer laptops to max out at 2 GB of RAM and have really slow single-core processors. Then I wouldn't be subjected to software written for machines with 64 GB of RAM and the latest high-end Intel processor.

drewg123 7y ago
I'm with you, but I'd rather they have 64 or 128 super, super slow cores. That way they'd make better use of threads, and hopefully uncover and fix more race-conditions and other concurrency bugs during development.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
I was about to reply the same. It's 2019 and many applications still take forever to start and are unresponsive as hell. How did we take orders of magnitude improvement in every metric and make it just as bad? The magic of Software Engineering I guess.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  These machines are literally supercomputers but they still struggle to perform common basic operations without delay even though much slower computers could manage a tolerable UX 20 years ago.
- chooseaname 7y ago
  How? By focusing on developer productivity and not the consumer. We can't get any more anti-consumer in the the tech industry if we tried at this point.
chrisseaton 7y ago
This is a silly attitude - it can take 8 GB of RAM to compile an application, which then runs happily in 2 GB.
- hrjro9jjr 7y ago
  Company code should be shipped to source control, and all test, buil/compilation handled by automated process that can be reviewed by all. IMO it doesn’t matter if you’re developing local desktop apps or cloud apps, anything that’s intended for broad distribution. What’s the point of one extra test run and compilation in a local fiefdom of personal customization? It’s even sillier for containerized apps where desktop metrics are way different than cloud providers.
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    You think we should push our code every single time we want to compile our code, and then download the binary? Never run any tests locally? Going to be tricky to develop on a flight then, isn't it?
- asdff 7y ago
  clusters are cheap and apple charges $200 for 8gb of RAM
  - atomicity 7y ago
    By using a remote machine, you gain in upfront cost but you lose dev time due to poor tooling. It's possible to use X11, SSH, SSHFS, or Kubernetes but it never truly replaces the flexibility of developing locally with an IDE. Kubernetes tooling _might_ get there in the future though. If you have a team at work dedicated to the tooling problem, remote dev can become really nice though.
psychometry 7y ago
Guessing you've never coded with a robust IDE before...
- saagarjha 7y ago
  What exactly does “robust” mean in this context? It’s not a given that a full-featured IDE needs to eat all your system RAM.
  - psychometry 7y ago
    Robust as in its set of features is on the level of, e.g., PyCharm and not RStudio.

drewg123 7y ago

I'm with you, but I'd rather they have 64 or 128 super, super slow cores. That way they'd make better use of threads, and hopefully uncover and fix more race-conditions and other concurrency bugs during development.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago

I was about to reply the same. It's 2019 and many applications still take forever to start and are unresponsive as hell. How did we take orders of magnitude improvement in every metric and make it just as bad? The magic of Software Engineering I guess.

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
These machines are literally supercomputers but they still struggle to perform common basic operations without delay even though much slower computers could manage a tolerable UX 20 years ago.
chooseaname 7y ago
How? By focusing on developer productivity and not the consumer. We can't get any more anti-consumer in the the tech industry if we tried at this point.

chrisseaton 7y ago

This is a silly attitude - it can take 8 GB of RAM to compile an application, which then runs happily in 2 GB.

hrjro9jjr 7y ago
Company code should be shipped to source control, and all test, buil/compilation handled by automated process that can be reviewed by all. IMO it doesn’t matter if you’re developing local desktop apps or cloud apps, anything that’s intended for broad distribution. What’s the point of one extra test run and compilation in a local fiefdom of personal customization? It’s even sillier for containerized apps where desktop metrics are way different than cloud providers.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  You think we should push our code every single time we want to compile our code, and then download the binary? Never run any tests locally? Going to be tricky to develop on a flight then, isn't it?
asdff 7y ago
clusters are cheap and apple charges $200 for 8gb of RAM
- atomicity 7y ago
  By using a remote machine, you gain in upfront cost but you lose dev time due to poor tooling. It's possible to use X11, SSH, SSHFS, or Kubernetes but it never truly replaces the flexibility of developing locally with an IDE. Kubernetes tooling _might_ get there in the future though. If you have a team at work dedicated to the tooling problem, remote dev can become really nice though.

psychometry 7y ago

Guessing you've never coded with a robust IDE before...

saagarjha 7y ago
What exactly does “robust” mean in this context? It’s not a given that a full-featured IDE needs to eat all your system RAM.
- psychometry 7y ago
  Robust as in its set of features is on the level of, e.g., PyCharm and not RStudio.