4 ms·
The tools we have are generally quite efficient. When someone puts thought and care into building software, it can be efficient. There's two problems: computer
by rolenthedeep 4y ago
The tools we have are generally quite efficient. When someone puts thought and care into building software, it can be efficient.
There's two problems: computers today have such a staggering amount of resources that being mindful of performance is no longer baked into the programming mindset. Then it simply isn't profitable to spend an extra month taking your program from "usable" to "performant".
More programmers need to try building something on a tiny AVR with 4kbit of RAM. It's more fun than you'd think.
- runnerup 4y ago> tiny AVR with 4kbit of RAM. It's more fun than you'd think. It’s also often more performant than you’d think. Even tiny microcontrollers so insane rates of calculations these days. I know these are much larger but I have trouble utilizing the full power of cortex M0 or M3. Even PIC8/16 can be tiny little beasts in the right applications. Point is, some of these aren’t even slow enough to show you why you’d care about efficient software code.
- BenjiWiebe 4y agoYou have to be efficient in both program and memory space on AVRs, more than CPU time.