3 ms·
> There’s an attitude out there of “who cares what happens after the user hits the X to exit? The process is dying anyway!” Why _should_ we care? Even here, yo
by patrick451 3y ago
> There’s an attitude out there of “who cares what happens after the user hits the X to exit? The process is dying anyway!”
Why _should_ we care? Even here, you're not providing a technical justification but instead make a quixotic appeal to emotion. I have listened to talks from HFT guys where they claim to deliberately ignore memory leaks if it produces faster code. They just buy more ram, and rely on the OS clean it up at the end of the trading day. Seems reasonable to me.
- jandrese 3y agoThe primary reason is to make it easier to detect memory leaks.
- ryandrake 3y agoI totally get that my appeal to aesthetics and craftsmanship probably just doesn’t even remotely resonate anymore with today’s generation of developers who are just looking to cobble something together so they can “crush it in the market, and have a massive exit, bro!” I always drag out the old Steve Jobs quote to explain my (evidently dying) attitude about Invisible Quality: “When you’re a carpenter making a beautiful chest of drawers, you’re not going to use a piece of plywood on the back, even though it faces the wall and nobody will ever see it. You’ll know it’s there, so you’re going to use a beautiful piece of wood on the back. For you to sleep well at night, the aesthetic, the quality, has to be carried all the way through.”
- beached_whale 3y agoNot just today’s generation, there’s always been a quality issue and attitudes like “It works on my computer”. Been a frustration of mine, along with it generally takes more effort to do it wrong.