4 ms·

> There is absolutely ZERO reason why a modern operating system or some rudimentary site with 10K users should not be blazing fast. I find dismissive statement

> There is absolutely ZERO reason why a modern operating system or some rudimentary site with 10K users should not be blazing fast. I find dismissive statements like this to be extremely useless to the conversation. I agree that a modern operating system could be blazing fast. But if that’s not the case, then there obviously is a reason. If you know the reason why software in general has gotten slower (compatibility?, bad devs?, more feature?), and already dismissed it as an invalid or insufficient reason, then share what you think that reason is. If you, like me, don’t know what that reason is, then let’s approach it with a problem-solving attitude and try to find out.

AlotOfReading 2y ago
Virtually everything in a modern development stack contributes to the problem. Buses are optimized for bandwidth at the cost of latency. CPUs are broadly optimized for throughput at the cost of latency. OS design is optimized for throughput and isolation, again at the cost of latency. Language runtimes are optimized for feature-richness, again at the cost of performance. Languages are optimized for quality of life features that carry hidden performance costs, like virtual functions and exception-based control flow. Developers compound this with dozens of layers of indirection and abstraction until finally, eventually there's a message on screen for the user. There isn't a singular cause to brainstorm. It's everything in the entire stack optimizing just a bit in other directions that produces the end result of disappointing, sluggish computers despite their actual capabilities. This discussion isn't going to tread any new ground either. All of these things are known because there are people who can't afford modern computing, like the HFT firms that are all on FPGAs now and real-time embedded systems. It's not hard to do, it's just tedious and expensive the way development used to be for everyone.
- Panzer04 2y ago
  But then you go play a game on windows, and everything works instantly. When performance is critical to have a good experience, it can be done, and pretty well. Most desktop software just doesn't give a shit about performance.
  - renegade-otter 2y ago
    Games have always been one sector where squeezing out every ounce of performance is the goal. And, unlike web devs, game developers test their products on inferior hardware, not just the latest and greatest video cards.
- kaba0 2y ago
  I’m fairly sure you would be equally upset with your world document taking multiple seconds to load were it lower bandwidth. Or if you couldn’t have a 4k screen at 120Hz, which is severalfold more data than hd@60Hz
beefnugs 2y ago
Capitalism constraints wont even allow adequate bug fixing. There sure as hell isn't time or money to optimize things

AlotOfReading 2y ago

Virtually everything in a modern development stack contributes to the problem. Buses are optimized for bandwidth at the cost of latency. CPUs are broadly optimized for throughput at the cost of latency. OS design is optimized for throughput and isolation, again at the cost of latency. Language runtimes are optimized for feature-richness, again at the cost of performance. Languages are optimized for quality of life features that carry hidden performance costs, like virtual functions and exception-based control flow. Developers compound this with dozens of layers of indirection and abstraction until finally, eventually there's a message on screen for the user. There isn't a singular cause to brainstorm. It's everything in the entire stack optimizing just a bit in other directions that produces the end result of disappointing, sluggish computers despite their actual capabilities. This discussion isn't going to tread any new ground either. All of these things are known because there are people who can't afford modern computing, like the HFT firms that are all on FPGAs now and real-time embedded systems. It's not hard to do, it's just tedious and expensive the way development used to be for everyone.

Panzer04 2y ago
But then you go play a game on windows, and everything works instantly. When performance is critical to have a good experience, it can be done, and pretty well. Most desktop software just doesn't give a shit about performance.
- renegade-otter 2y ago
  Games have always been one sector where squeezing out every ounce of performance is the goal. And, unlike web devs, game developers test their products on inferior hardware, not just the latest and greatest video cards.
kaba0 2y ago
I’m fairly sure you would be equally upset with your world document taking multiple seconds to load were it lower bandwidth. Or if you couldn’t have a 4k screen at 120Hz, which is severalfold more data than hd@60Hz

beefnugs 2y ago

Capitalism constraints wont even allow adequate bug fixing. There sure as hell isn't time or money to optimize things