4 ms·

The inefficiency of that process increases electricity usage, the carbon footprint, and therefore contributes to climate change. Which, eventually, murders pup

The inefficiency of that process increases electricity usage, the carbon footprint, and therefore contributes to climate change. Which, eventually, murders puppies. Good enough for your arbitrary standard? I would have thought the fact that all preceding side effects will be re-executed each time a new line is written is bad enough, but whatever.

jack_pp 3y ago
Penny wise, pound foolish. By this logic computer games are a genocide in which millions participate every second
- d-lisp 3y ago
  The true question this types of discussion evoke to me is : Are we able to live ethically ? (Which leads to "What is ethics ?", which eventually leads to " Ethics is nonsensical".)
  - silon42 3y ago
    When my dad saw a queue of tourist cars on a weekend around half of the ring of the capital city he said that if this really causes global warming, this must be banned immediately.
    - d-lisp 3y ago
      Well, if you ban tourism, you're on an efficient track of slowing global warming.
      - intelVISA 3y ago
        Banning Python would also be huge for reducing our carbon emissions.
        d-lisp 3y ago
        You see, logical thinking doesn't bring us far in ethics, because it leads to "The biggest thing we can do to reduce our carbon emission is to cease".
tester756 3y ago
>The inefficiency of that process increases electricity usage, the carbon footprint, and therefore contributes to climate change. Which, eventually, murders puppies. You'll waste more electricity trying to solve it correctly than it will ever waste. The real problem to solve would be: how to make GCC, Clang, etc. fast. Or how to make C++'s syntax easy and fast to work with. Or how to convince people to switch to Rust? ;)