2 ms·
I'd rather systematically measure and monitor my code and systems (which should be done anyway) than waste my time with slower CPUs, memory, disks, NICs, etc. I
by emidln 7y ago
I'd rather systematically measure and monitor my code and systems (which should be done anyway) than waste my time with slower CPUs, memory, disks, NICs, etc. I've spent some time doing embedded, and I'd never dream of using an 8mhz, 16bit machine just because that's what my target runs.
If a fast cpu masks a "problem", I'd submit that it might not be a problem. Hardware is cheap, I try to save my brain cycles for stuff that matters, like HN, .emacs.d, and codegolf!
- falcolas 7y agoEDIT: This turned into a bit of a rant about one sentence from the parent's post. Sorry about that, this is just aimed at the "hardware is cheap" mentality. The "hardware is cheap" phrase was rampant in our company until about a year ago. A year ago an executive took a closer look at our cloud bill and, well, exploded. Now there's a huge push to reclaim those extra cycles and RAM as our "cheap hardware" bill is outrunning our overall salary costs. Being at a point where this is a problem could be considered to be a good thing; we have enough traffic to cause it to be an issue. The problem is, the MVP was cost efficient (even at scale), it's the re-write that's costing us money. At some point, you have to grow up and realize that throwing hardware at poor code is not a sustainable solution. At scale, the equation flips. Hardware becomes expensive, and any given developer's time is cheap.
- maxmcd 7y agoHardware is cheap, cloud services are expensive :)
- bryanrasmussen 7y agoThe cloud is cheap, it's when you need so many clouds you can't see sunlight anymore it becomes expensive.