9 ms·

There really should be a penalty for gratuitous waste of resources. Energy consumption is neither free nor without adverse impacts. The era of planed obsolescen

There really should be a penalty for gratuitous waste of resources. Energy consumption is neither free nor without adverse impacts. The era of planed obsolescence, bloatware expanding to gobble up and justify ever more hardware is over. A fresh take on the desktop given the monstrous devices that are now available in terms of cpu, memory etc may completely redefine the footprint of personal computing

phendrenad2 4y ago
No, there should not. Otherwise every single app shop on earth is going to he paying it.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
  So?
72deluxe 4y ago
Try telling that to the users of Slack and other modern "desktop" applications that are simply web browsers with poorly-implemented UI elements attempting to mimic native UI elements (like menus). I wish your idea took off, but the modern "developer" (even with insane amounts of funding) seems capable of only writing memory-hogging garbage.
- shortcake27 4y ago
  > the modern “developer” seems capable of only writing memory-hogging garbage. They’re perfectly capable of writing good software but actively choose not to. 1Password is the perfect example - lots of money, good engineers, a team who proved actually did write beautifully implemented native applications. Then they switched to Electron so they could avoid double-handling, and now users are faced with a laggy, buggy, janky, resource-intensive application.
nine_k 4y ago
> a penalty for gratuitous waste of resources It used to be the price of the hardware. Partly it still is: people won't use your software if they can't afford machines that are able to run it. But hardware gets cheaper. It's now more about power consumption: both as price of electricity and as battery life. But usually the "waste of resources" is "less time spent developing", that is, the users get to use some capability faster
bob1029 4y ago
No there should not. Laggy bullshit software is already bad enough and developing low latency user experiences is only getting harder. There are applications that are extremely vulnerable to energy saving crap. Anything real-time is simply going to need to consume more power. Waiting 15.625 milliseconds completely breaks some applications. You will take timeBeginPeriod(1) and friends from my dead, cold hands.

phendrenad2 4y ago

No, there should not. Otherwise every single app shop on earth is going to he paying it.

mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
So?

72deluxe 4y ago

Try telling that to the users of Slack and other modern "desktop" applications that are simply web browsers with poorly-implemented UI elements attempting to mimic native UI elements (like menus). I wish your idea took off, but the modern "developer" (even with insane amounts of funding) seems capable of only writing memory-hogging garbage.

shortcake27 4y ago
> the modern “developer” seems capable of only writing memory-hogging garbage. They’re perfectly capable of writing good software but actively choose not to. 1Password is the perfect example - lots of money, good engineers, a team who proved actually did write beautifully implemented native applications. Then they switched to Electron so they could avoid double-handling, and now users are faced with a laggy, buggy, janky, resource-intensive application.

nine_k 4y ago

> a penalty for gratuitous waste of resources It used to be the price of the hardware. Partly it still is: people won't use your software if they can't afford machines that are able to run it. But hardware gets cheaper. It's now more about power consumption: both as price of electricity and as battery life. But usually the "waste of resources" is "less time spent developing", that is, the users get to use some capability faster

bob1029 4y ago

No there should not. Laggy bullshit software is already bad enough and developing low latency user experiences is only getting harder. There are applications that are extremely vulnerable to energy saving crap. Anything real-time is simply going to need to consume more power. Waiting 15.625 milliseconds completely breaks some applications. You will take timeBeginPeriod(1) and friends from my dead, cold hands.