4 ms·

I mean, it doesn't hurt that hardware now is so fast and scalable that performance and efficiency can take a back seat to usability and clarity. Guarantee this

I mean, it doesn't hurt that hardware now is so fast and scalable that performance and efficiency can take a back seat to usability and clarity. Guarantee this was done because storing the title as part of the first name field saved a few bytes over having a separate field, and that really mattered in the 70s when these systems were designed.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
kingbirdy 7y ago
Based on the top answer, this appears to be an error in the CLI "helpfully" re-interpreting Amr as { First name: A, Title: Mr }, not an issue on the data storage side.
- naniwaduni 7y ago
  This interpretation imputes a principled separation of the "CLI" from the "data storage side". Not a winning bet.
- solstice 7y ago
  Would be interesting to know whether other people whose names end in mr also have this problem
adrianmonk 7y ago
Yeah, it is a mixture of causes. Sometimes hardware constraints really did force software into tough choices. The C programming language might be a good example. From a modern perspective, requiring forward declarations seems like pointless busywork. At the time it was written, decisions like that made it possible to have a one-pass compiler, which was an important efficiency gain. You could reduce I/O and maybe save RAM.
vmurthy 7y ago
> it doesn't hurt that hardware now is so fast and scalable that performance and efficiency can take a back seat to usability and clarity. Agree. Unfortunately , the users of even the new usable systems may be loath to take up these changes. Why? I guess inertia and priorities. My mind goes back to QWERTY v/s Dvorak and how it panned out. The top answer on StackExchange alludes to this, too.
- Johnny555 7y ago
  My mind goes back to QWERTY v/s Dvorak and how it panned out. Sometimes the new system isn't better so there's no reason to switch... AFAIK, Dvorak is not better than QWERTY (despite claims to the contrary). I worked in IT at a hotel company when they made the cutover from a 3270 based text system to an early 90's modern Windows GUI -- agents hated it, even with command shortcuts it was slower than the old interface. Training new agents was faster, but experienced agents were much slower.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

kingbirdy 7y ago

Based on the top answer, this appears to be an error in the CLI "helpfully" re-interpreting Amr as { First name: A, Title: Mr }, not an issue on the data storage side.

naniwaduni 7y ago
This interpretation imputes a principled separation of the "CLI" from the "data storage side". Not a winning bet.
solstice 7y ago
Would be interesting to know whether other people whose names end in mr also have this problem

adrianmonk 7y ago

Yeah, it is a mixture of causes. Sometimes hardware constraints really did force software into tough choices. The C programming language might be a good example. From a modern perspective, requiring forward declarations seems like pointless busywork. At the time it was written, decisions like that made it possible to have a one-pass compiler, which was an important efficiency gain. You could reduce I/O and maybe save RAM.

vmurthy 7y ago

> it doesn't hurt that hardware now is so fast and scalable that performance and efficiency can take a back seat to usability and clarity. Agree. Unfortunately , the users of even the new usable systems may be loath to take up these changes. Why? I guess inertia and priorities. My mind goes back to QWERTY v/s Dvorak and how it panned out. The top answer on StackExchange alludes to this, too.

Johnny555 7y ago
My mind goes back to QWERTY v/s Dvorak and how it panned out. Sometimes the new system isn't better so there's no reason to switch... AFAIK, Dvorak is not better than QWERTY (despite claims to the contrary). I worked in IT at a hotel company when they made the cutover from a 3270 based text system to an early 90's modern Windows GUI -- agents hated it, even with command shortcuts it was slower than the old interface. Training new agents was faster, but experienced agents were much slower.