4 ms·

When you profile code, do you spend your time fixing the most resource-intensive function or the function whose name you don’t like? Maybe you disagree with th

by _moof 5y ago

When you profile code, do you spend your time fixing the most resource-intensive function or the function whose name you don’t like? Maybe you disagree with the suggestion that there are way, way bigger fish to fry, and we should prioritize our limited resources accordingly. But to say that it’s “completely ridiculous?” That’s a little over the top.

unishark 5y ago
In your analogy your implication would be that the software engineer should spend their effort in the corporate boardroom arguing for changes in product requirements rather than in fixing bugs in the current product.
- mattmanser 5y ago
  The requirements are fine, the requirements are to pay 20% tax on your profits. The bug is in the code, the interface with international trade. It's allowing many orders of magnitude more tax to disappear than the pesky unemployment fraud code. So no, I think his analogy is solid, the requirements are clear, the implementation is at fault.
  - syshum 5y ago
    I am sure many including myself are going to disagree with the assertion that the "requirements are fine"
  - kortilla 5y ago
    For fucks sake one is breaking the law. Corporations are following the law. There is no requirement that corporations pay 20%, that is crap you made up. The law is quite clear on fraud. In the analogy the law is the requirements, enforcement is the implementation. You don’t like the requirements, sure. The implementation is still broken because it doesn’t address the fraud. It can’t do anything about the requirements because those are outside the scope of things that can be changed by the implementor. The analogy is absolutely shit because it presumes the same actor writing the code can change the requirements, which is not true in software engineering nor in the US government.
kortilla 5y ago
It’s completely ridiculous because those companies aren’t breaking the law. To your code profiling analogy, we’ve seen a problem and the solution proposed is just to buy more hardware to workaround it.
- Lammy 5y ago
  > It’s completely ridiculous because those companies aren’t breaking the law. Yes, that makes it worse, unless you think the poor can afford to do a lot of lobbying for more favorable tax laws.
  - kortilla 5y ago
    So your answer is we shouldn’t enforce laws because there exist law abiding rich corporations? It’s not even logically coherent. I’m all for passing laws to repeal tax exemptions but that has jack shit to do with massive fraud. You don’t encourage reproduction to deal with a murder problem.

by _moof 5y ago

unishark 5y ago

In your analogy your implication would be that the software engineer should spend their effort in the corporate boardroom arguing for changes in product requirements rather than in fixing bugs in the current product.

mattmanser 5y ago
The requirements are fine, the requirements are to pay 20% tax on your profits. The bug is in the code, the interface with international trade. It's allowing many orders of magnitude more tax to disappear than the pesky unemployment fraud code. So no, I think his analogy is solid, the requirements are clear, the implementation is at fault.
- syshum 5y ago
  I am sure many including myself are going to disagree with the assertion that the "requirements are fine"
- kortilla 5y ago
  For fucks sake one is breaking the law. Corporations are following the law. There is no requirement that corporations pay 20%, that is crap you made up. The law is quite clear on fraud. In the analogy the law is the requirements, enforcement is the implementation. You don’t like the requirements, sure. The implementation is still broken because it doesn’t address the fraud. It can’t do anything about the requirements because those are outside the scope of things that can be changed by the implementor. The analogy is absolutely shit because it presumes the same actor writing the code can change the requirements, which is not true in software engineering nor in the US government.

kortilla 5y ago

It’s completely ridiculous because those companies aren’t breaking the law. To your code profiling analogy, we’ve seen a problem and the solution proposed is just to buy more hardware to workaround it.

Lammy 5y ago
> It’s completely ridiculous because those companies aren’t breaking the law. Yes, that makes it worse, unless you think the poor can afford to do a lot of lobbying for more favorable tax laws.
- kortilla 5y ago
  So your answer is we shouldn’t enforce laws because there exist law abiding rich corporations? It’s not even logically coherent. I’m all for passing laws to repeal tax exemptions but that has jack shit to do with massive fraud. You don’t encourage reproduction to deal with a murder problem.