4 ms·
yes, it is possible to be that efficient now, but there is little incentive to do so. it is far easier, and faster, to use a library that is bad than to write
by naikrovek 5y ago
yes, it is possible to be that efficient now, but there is little incentive to do so.
it is far easier, and faster, to use a library that is bad than to write what you need efficiently.
"CPU is cheap." "RAM is cheap." two of the many cancerous sayings that developers use to excuse their poor efforts.
we don't do this now because we simply do not care enough as an industry. we want the software written immediately and for as little money as possible.
- throwawaygh 5y agoIt's not just money. Security is another reason. Buffer overflows are a thing of the past in application code except in very special cases (or silly tech stack choices). But even if it were just money, so what? Time is money, buddy. I can be home to my family sooner by spending a few MB of your RAM. Sorry not sorry.
- maccard 5y ago> we don't do this now because we simply do not care enough as an industry. we want the software written immediately and for as little money as possible. It's not about "as little money as possible" it's about priorities. Above, someone mentioned spending 2 months individually packing structures for a game to reduce memory to fit. Given the choice between having a developer spend 2 months on that or a developer spend 2 months localising the game, or adding accessibility options the choice today is features.