6 ms·

Your point is solid and I had the same philosophy for a while but I think we should draw the line of "minimum supported CPU" a bit further into the future for o

Your point is solid and I had the same philosophy for a while but I think we should draw the line of "minimum supported CPU" a bit further into the future for one simple reason: Ecology. A lot of the older computers were awfully power-inefficient (and also emit a lot of heat). So IMO we should replace "Pentium 4" in your statement with something like "Celeron J4115", or some of the Atom CPUs, maybe?

pjmlp 5y ago
Many of those older computers are the first computer of someone around the globe still, at least as long as they keep working.
- pdimitar 5y ago
  Sure, not contesting this, but I meant my comment more along the lines of: If I am to gauge my app's speed on an anemic hardware I'd prefer running it on a modern Atom or Celeron because (a) indeed they're anemic but (b) at least are more eco-friendly.
  - kergonath 5y ago
    Do you include the cost of manufacturing in your calculations? There is a point where newer and more efficient is better, but in general it’s better to hold on devices for longer.
    - pdimitar 5y ago
      I don't, mostly because the manufacturers are far disconnected from the needs of the end users of computing -- they mostly serve big businesses. So the machines end up manufactured anyway. On this lane of thought, I'd say better to buy a laptop today (that's much greener than everything before it) that you can hold on to for 10+ years than holding on to another that has long passed its expiration date. But I am aware that this is not always a popular opinion.
      - jfrunyon 5y ago
        Big businesses are the end users of computing. But that doesn't change anything. Why do big businesses have to upgrade their computers every few years?
        pdimitar 5y ago
        That I don't know. I personally wouldn't. I've seen big companies where 100+ people who just do Zoom / Excel / Jira all day have MacBook Pros, which is insanity. I was simply mentioning that the machines get manufactured anyway so I definitely refuse to be guilt-tripped into "it's your fault that those machines exist!" extremist stance. No, it's not my fault. The machines are manufactured regardless of what I do so every 7-8 years I evaluate the market and upgrade. Reasons are simple -- most modern software gets slower all the time and I still need to work and support my family. I would hold onto my machines for a lifetime but it's not the reality we live in and I wish the downvoters stopped being so tunnel-visioned and were aware of that.
        moonbug 5y ago
        > do Zoom / Excel / Jira all day have MacBook Pros, which is insanity. Agreed. A base MacBook Pro isn't nearly powerful enough for all 3 of those at once.
        pdimitar 5y ago
        LOL! You have a good point. :D
      - addingnumbers 5y ago
        > the manufacturers are far disconnected from the needs of the end users of computing -- they mostly serve big businesses Same goes for power. They're not going to burn one less lump of coal because your laptop uses 100W instead of 300W
        madpata 5y ago
  - thrwaeasddsaf 5y ago
    If you're going that route, I'd focus on small & cheap SBCs. A bare, credit card sized ARM computer is probably going to be more ecological (both in manufacture and operation) than an Intel PC.
    - pdimitar 5y ago
      Yes, and I do just that where I can. One of my home servers is exactly an ARM SBC and I am very happy to see it idle at <5W. (Also pondering moving my NAS to an ARM SBC as well but not sure it's worth the hassle since the mini Intel i3 PC idles at 10W.) For work however, a programmer just can't do with those underpowered machines if they want to be productive and not wait 3 minutes for incremental compilation after each change they make (which an LSP server does, and even if it didn't, re-running tests does the same anyway). I am happy to work on a more ecological machine if somebody optimizes the dev tooling and my programming languages' of choice compilers and linkers. I'd absolutely love it if all my machines idled at 5W and peaked at 35W. But if I am to support my family, that stance isn't easily achievable today. Yet.
      - wrycoder 5y ago
        Meanwhile, my Starlink dish is idling at 100 watts, which works out to be about eight percent of my electrical bill.
  - fouric 5y ago
    Why does the eco-friendliness of the processor you're testing on matter at all? I can guarantee you that your users are not going to go out and purchase less power-efficient CPUs themselves just because you tested on a power-inefficient CPU yourself. And, the amount of electricity that you, the developer, spend testing your code will almost always be eclipsed by that of your users if more than a dozen others use your tool. So, again: why does it matter how power-efficient the CPU you're testing on is, as long as it's slow (to produce the proper throttling effect)?
    - pdimitar 5y ago
      You are right, they aren't related per se. I was alluding to replacing the idea of holding on to a Pentium 4 with buying a modern, more eco-friendly, but ultimately just as anemic, CPU. Not a perfectly representative test, sure, I just felt that it was a good compromise between "test your code on weak machines" and "be environmentally responsible". So yep, I did conflate weak CPU with low-wattage CPU, you are right.
frereubu 5y ago
My guess (and it is a guess) is that the extra heat / electricity consumption is pretty negligible compared to the amount of energy and raw materials needed to manufacture and distribute a new computer.
- pdimitar 5y ago
  True, but as I said in another sibling comment -- the machines get manufactured anyway (since the production capacity is mostly optimized around the needs of big customers) so I might as well get a much greener machine now and hold on to it for 10+ years because I will burn less CO2 while I am using it.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - jhoechtl 5y ago
    You save more (money and ressources) by not buying a new engine.
    - pdimitar 5y ago
      You assume that my goal is to spend the absolute minimum sum on tech over my entire life. That's not it. My goal is to spend the minimum realistic sum for tech that enables me to do my job well and long-term so I am financially free and help the businesses that hire me, and keep improving my craft (for which I have love ever since a pre-teen). That doesn't equal holding on to a MacBook Pro 2012 until 2030. It equals keeping an old machine around to check if the code in the final version of my current PR is well-optimized -- but I work on a much stronger machine because stuff like LSP and re-running tests is crucial for productivity. And we all know that most dev tooling is generally extremely demanding.
  - frereubu 5y ago
    That logic makes the "re-use" part of "reduce, re-use, recycle" redundant. You're part of a society that, when acting roughly in tandem, can make large-scale chages. If everyone followed your logic nothing would ever change and, if I'm honest, it sounds more like a rationalisation for indulging in new tech (an impulse which I share!)
bad_alloc 5y ago
We can run those inefficient machines on electricity from renewable sources. Reduce > Reuse > Recycle applies: Building a new computer will almost always be worse than keeping the old one, whose production cost has already been paid.
- pdimitar 5y ago
  We can, but do we really? I am fully behind your idea but sadly the whole "let's move to renewables" thing just takes so damn long. :(
  - Forbo 5y ago
    Yeah, it does. But in the meantime you can purchase renewable credits to offset your consumption and help push adoption.
    - pdimitar 5y ago
      Agreed, and I do that. During that meantime I can't work on an RPi however.

pjmlp 5y ago

Many of those older computers are the first computer of someone around the globe still, at least as long as they keep working.

pdimitar 5y ago
Sure, not contesting this, but I meant my comment more along the lines of: If I am to gauge my app's speed on an anemic hardware I'd prefer running it on a modern Atom or Celeron because (a) indeed they're anemic but (b) at least are more eco-friendly.
- kergonath 5y ago
  Do you include the cost of manufacturing in your calculations? There is a point where newer and more efficient is better, but in general it’s better to hold on devices for longer.
  - pdimitar 5y ago
    I don't, mostly because the manufacturers are far disconnected from the needs of the end users of computing -- they mostly serve big businesses. So the machines end up manufactured anyway. On this lane of thought, I'd say better to buy a laptop today (that's much greener than everything before it) that you can hold on to for 10+ years than holding on to another that has long passed its expiration date. But I am aware that this is not always a popular opinion.
    - jfrunyon 5y ago
      Big businesses are the end users of computing. But that doesn't change anything. Why do big businesses have to upgrade their computers every few years?
      - pdimitar 5y ago
        That I don't know. I personally wouldn't. I've seen big companies where 100+ people who just do Zoom / Excel / Jira all day have MacBook Pros, which is insanity. I was simply mentioning that the machines get manufactured anyway so I definitely refuse to be guilt-tripped into "it's your fault that those machines exist!" extremist stance. No, it's not my fault. The machines are manufactured regardless of what I do so every 7-8 years I evaluate the market and upgrade. Reasons are simple -- most modern software gets slower all the time and I still need to work and support my family. I would hold onto my machines for a lifetime but it's not the reality we live in and I wish the downvoters stopped being so tunnel-visioned and were aware of that.
        moonbug 5y ago
        > do Zoom / Excel / Jira all day have MacBook Pros, which is insanity. Agreed. A base MacBook Pro isn't nearly powerful enough for all 3 of those at once.
        pdimitar 5y ago
        LOL! You have a good point. :D
    - addingnumbers 5y ago
      > the manufacturers are far disconnected from the needs of the end users of computing -- they mostly serve big businesses Same goes for power. They're not going to burn one less lump of coal because your laptop uses 100W instead of 300W
      - madpata 5y ago
- thrwaeasddsaf 5y ago
  If you're going that route, I'd focus on small & cheap SBCs. A bare, credit card sized ARM computer is probably going to be more ecological (both in manufacture and operation) than an Intel PC.
  - pdimitar 5y ago
    Yes, and I do just that where I can. One of my home servers is exactly an ARM SBC and I am very happy to see it idle at <5W. (Also pondering moving my NAS to an ARM SBC as well but not sure it's worth the hassle since the mini Intel i3 PC idles at 10W.) For work however, a programmer just can't do with those underpowered machines if they want to be productive and not wait 3 minutes for incremental compilation after each change they make (which an LSP server does, and even if it didn't, re-running tests does the same anyway). I am happy to work on a more ecological machine if somebody optimizes the dev tooling and my programming languages' of choice compilers and linkers. I'd absolutely love it if all my machines idled at 5W and peaked at 35W. But if I am to support my family, that stance isn't easily achievable today. Yet.
    - wrycoder 5y ago
      Meanwhile, my Starlink dish is idling at 100 watts, which works out to be about eight percent of my electrical bill.
- fouric 5y ago
  Why does the eco-friendliness of the processor you're testing on matter at all? I can guarantee you that your users are not going to go out and purchase less power-efficient CPUs themselves just because you tested on a power-inefficient CPU yourself. And, the amount of electricity that you, the developer, spend testing your code will almost always be eclipsed by that of your users if more than a dozen others use your tool. So, again: why does it matter how power-efficient the CPU you're testing on is, as long as it's slow (to produce the proper throttling effect)?
  - pdimitar 5y ago
    You are right, they aren't related per se. I was alluding to replacing the idea of holding on to a Pentium 4 with buying a modern, more eco-friendly, but ultimately just as anemic, CPU. Not a perfectly representative test, sure, I just felt that it was a good compromise between "test your code on weak machines" and "be environmentally responsible". So yep, I did conflate weak CPU with low-wattage CPU, you are right.

frereubu 5y ago

My guess (and it is a guess) is that the extra heat / electricity consumption is pretty negligible compared to the amount of energy and raw materials needed to manufacture and distribute a new computer.

pdimitar 5y ago
True, but as I said in another sibling comment -- the machines get manufactured anyway (since the production capacity is mostly optimized around the needs of big customers) so I might as well get a much greener machine now and hold on to it for 10+ years because I will burn less CO2 while I am using it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jhoechtl 5y ago
  You save more (money and ressources) by not buying a new engine.
  - pdimitar 5y ago
    You assume that my goal is to spend the absolute minimum sum on tech over my entire life. That's not it. My goal is to spend the minimum realistic sum for tech that enables me to do my job well and long-term so I am financially free and help the businesses that hire me, and keep improving my craft (for which I have love ever since a pre-teen). That doesn't equal holding on to a MacBook Pro 2012 until 2030. It equals keeping an old machine around to check if the code in the final version of my current PR is well-optimized -- but I work on a much stronger machine because stuff like LSP and re-running tests is crucial for productivity. And we all know that most dev tooling is generally extremely demanding.
- frereubu 5y ago
  That logic makes the "re-use" part of "reduce, re-use, recycle" redundant. You're part of a society that, when acting roughly in tandem, can make large-scale chages. If everyone followed your logic nothing would ever change and, if I'm honest, it sounds more like a rationalisation for indulging in new tech (an impulse which I share!)

bad_alloc 5y ago

We can run those inefficient machines on electricity from renewable sources. Reduce > Reuse > Recycle applies: Building a new computer will almost always be worse than keeping the old one, whose production cost has already been paid.

pdimitar 5y ago
We can, but do we really? I am fully behind your idea but sadly the whole "let's move to renewables" thing just takes so damn long. :(
- Forbo 5y ago
  Yeah, it does. But in the meantime you can purchase renewable credits to offset your consumption and help push adoption.
  - pdimitar 5y ago
    Agreed, and I do that. During that meantime I can't work on an RPi however.