4 ms·
> Well for code that gets executed billions of times spending more human cycles seems a fair trade off. Do you feel the same way about (e.g.) modern mechanized
by Turing_Machine 4y ago
> Well for code that gets executed billions of times spending more human cycles seems a fair trade off.
Do you feel the same way about (e.g.) modern mechanized farming compared to classic farming that used human labor (generally unfree and unpaid labor, such as serfs or slaves)?
"Efficiency" is not the only goal that matters.
- jnsaff2 4y agoI don’t get your analogy. Comparing manual labor to industrialized farming is comparing (paper) accounting books to programming. Whether you add gps based differential seeding to just doing it by ‘feel’ but still with machines is the difference of programmer brain cycles. Efficiency is not all obviously and there are different efficiencies one can find relevant. Why is this controversial?
- Turing_Machine 4y agoYou're advocating for more programmer work and less machine work. The situations are exactly the same. Just because programming is "brain work" rather than "muscle work" doesn't somehow make it not work.
- jnsaff2 4y agoYou not saying you are not a troll does not make you any less of a troll.
- Turing_Machine 4y agoYou suggesting that I am a "troll" does not exculpate you from answering the question. Your argument is that programmers should use less-convenient and more painful languages to save energy. The argument that agriculture should be performed by unpaid peasants or slaves is exactly the same. Edit: it doesn't actually matter if they are paid or not (although they generally weren't). The history of human progress is pretty much defined by using energy to replace human scutwork.