5 ms·
Call it what it is: slow. Slow software is bad software.
by guhidalg 2y ago
Call it what it is: slow. Slow software is bad software.
- swalling 2y agoIt's not just performance, it's also that the number of clicks to perform common actions is way too high because of feature bloat, extreme levels of customizability, and just plain bad design.
- JohnFen 2y agoI very strongly prefer slow software that has a reasonable UI over fast software that does not, though.
- drewcoo 2y agoI prefer fast software to support slow, deliberative humans. Slow software "gets in the way" instead of "making life easier."
- mbesto 2y agoNo. Performance is a feature[0]. It's neither good or bad, it's often a desirable feature but it doesn't mean it's bad. A green screen UI will kick the shit out of any modern day web UI (compare old school Infor with a modern SFDC interface). However, it's just another feature, like the ability to create tabs on the UI or use a cursor to move across the screen (vs a keyboard) that contributes to the overall UX. [0] - https://blog.codinghorror.com/performance-is-a-feature/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/performance-is-a-feature/
- FridgeSeal 2y agoUnfortunately we’ve had several years of websites absolutely taking the piss when it comes to performance and deploying molasses slow dumpster fires. A decent level of performance these days should be table stakes, and _high_ performance is a feature. Software that’s molasses slow _is bad software_ these days.
- mbesto 2y agoStable diffusion is essentially "slow", yet wildly popular so I'm not sure I agree.
- naravara 2y agoIt’s fine to take time to crunch output. What needs to be fast is interaction. If it tells you “Hang on I’m working on it” I don’t think anyone minds that as long as you can leave it to cook while doing something else.
- sph 2y agoSpeed is always relative, otherwise it's a subjective, and thus less interesting metric (it's slow for you, not for me). Stable diffusion is not relatively slow, because it has no alternative that is noticeably faster.
- Dylan16807 2y agoCutting edge supercomputer programs get judged by different standards from basic forms. And when slow is the only option, people will wait.
- mbesto 2y agoDing ding, you nailed my point.
- Dylan16807 2y agoWeird, because I completely agree with FridgeSeal. Decent performance is table stakes outside of very special contexts, and software that can't manage it is bad. Finding an exception doesn't make that stop being true in general.
- notjoemama 2y agoI with you. But maybe there's a line it crosses from feature to critical impediment? A great example is YouTube in a web browser. My internet is 350 Mbps with 20-40ms latency. Trying to load YouTube in a new browser tab takes a few to several seconds and I'm forced to wait for it to load because the sign in link doesn't show up until the end of the seizure inducing re-render flashes. Safari, no add ons. I can't believe it takes so long and I think less of Google as a company because of it. Them speeding it up is not a feature in that case. A trillion dollar technology company ought to provide fast as merely baseline. Anything less is them intentionally disregarding their customer.
- folmar 2y agoIt's only turtle slow if you use their cloud version, onprem is reasonable (under 1s for any page, much faster for simpler ones).
- ajmurmann 2y agoDepends on your on-prem setup. I've worked on an instance that had tens of thousand users and it was very slow. At times unusable. Also 1s is super slow given how much time you spend in the tool and how many clicks are required for many operations.