4 ms·

Depends on what you are working on. For Rust and C++ compilation fast CPU/RAM/SSD makes a massive difference, so I'm always eager to upgrade to the latest and

Depends on what you are working on. For Rust and C++ compilation fast CPU/RAM/SSD makes a massive difference, so I'm always eager to upgrade to the latest and greatest.

hansvm 2y ago
> my language doesn't care about compilation speed, so I'm generating e-waste at a significant personal expense to compensate That isn't a personal critique, even sounding like a perfectly rational decision, but if anyone here is working on a language (or any other software) of any popularity, it's worth keeping those sorts of negative second-order effects in mind.
- tarnith 2y ago
  This is an odd critique. Many interpreted languages consume easily upwards of 50x the energy at runtime...
  - hansvm 2y ago
    > Compiled language authors shouldn't write faster compilers because interpreted languages exist My point is that the costs of those particular compiled languages is high enough that it's worth some additional investment in speed, regardless of the existence of interpreted languages.
    - the_duke 2y ago
      > the costs of those particular compiled languages is high enough Only if we are talking developer experience. Even if you are working on something almost no-one uses. Spending a bit of time , or even hours, compiling, will be dwarfed by running more efficient code. Just remember that there are billions of devices constantly (re)JITing Javascript code...
- fluoridation 2y ago
  It's unclear who you're criticizing. The developer who uses a compiled language (even though all things considered compiled languages are generally more efficient)? The compiler developer who doesn't optimize the compiler (even though it's unclear compilers could be much faster)? Also, why do you think upgrading a computer intrinsically leads to e-waste? I've kept or given away every computer I've bought that still works. Why wouldn't I, when it's still perfectly capable of doing useful work.
  - hansvm 2y ago
    > who I'm criticizing Developers of wasteful software, such as unoptimized compilers. It's not an absolute criticism, just a call-out to keep performance in mind because of second-order effects. > even though it's unclear compilers could be much faster You've used languages with substantially faster compilers, right? The majority of the rust compiler's runtime isn't the borrow checker. Standard C++ compilers don't fundamentally do anything beyond what other systems languages do. > intrinsically leads to e-waste It's not _intrinsic_, but somewhere around 1/3 of computers are re-used or recycled. Most people, when upgrading, have done so because they perceive their previous computer as unsatisfactory for their normal tasks, and most people don't have background work or servers or whatnot to make use of old computers. Toss in the re-sale value of $100-$200, and it's not worth the time and effort for a lot of people to re-sell or recycle. Yes, they should do better, but with that reality in mind you can easily construct a _correct_ causal model of "if I write slow, popular software then I there will be much more e-waste than if I had not done so."
    - fluoridation 2y ago
      Sure, but developers, and especially C++ and Rust developers, make up a small minority of the total market. The general statement "most people will throw in the garbage their old computer when buying a new one" may not apply in general to such an unusual subset. Like I said, it doesn't apply to me, and I've upgraded specifically to get better build times.
      - hansvm 2y ago

Depends on what you are working on. For Rust and C++ compilation fast CPU/RAM/SSD makes a massive difference, so I'm always eager to upgrade to the latest and greatest.

hansvm 2y ago

> my language doesn't care about compilation speed, so I'm generating e-waste at a significant personal expense to compensate That isn't a personal critique, even sounding like a perfectly rational decision, but if anyone here is working on a language (or any other software) of any popularity, it's worth keeping those sorts of negative second-order effects in mind.

tarnith 2y ago
This is an odd critique. Many interpreted languages consume easily upwards of 50x the energy at runtime...
- hansvm 2y ago
  > Compiled language authors shouldn't write faster compilers because interpreted languages exist My point is that the costs of those particular compiled languages is high enough that it's worth some additional investment in speed, regardless of the existence of interpreted languages.
  - the_duke 2y ago
    > the costs of those particular compiled languages is high enough Only if we are talking developer experience. Even if you are working on something almost no-one uses. Spending a bit of time , or even hours, compiling, will be dwarfed by running more efficient code. Just remember that there are billions of devices constantly (re)JITing Javascript code...
fluoridation 2y ago
It's unclear who you're criticizing. The developer who uses a compiled language (even though all things considered compiled languages are generally more efficient)? The compiler developer who doesn't optimize the compiler (even though it's unclear compilers could be much faster)? Also, why do you think upgrading a computer intrinsically leads to e-waste? I've kept or given away every computer I've bought that still works. Why wouldn't I, when it's still perfectly capable of doing useful work.
- hansvm 2y ago
  > who I'm criticizing Developers of wasteful software, such as unoptimized compilers. It's not an absolute criticism, just a call-out to keep performance in mind because of second-order effects. > even though it's unclear compilers could be much faster You've used languages with substantially faster compilers, right? The majority of the rust compiler's runtime isn't the borrow checker. Standard C++ compilers don't fundamentally do anything beyond what other systems languages do. > intrinsically leads to e-waste It's not _intrinsic_, but somewhere around 1/3 of computers are re-used or recycled. Most people, when upgrading, have done so because they perceive their previous computer as unsatisfactory for their normal tasks, and most people don't have background work or servers or whatnot to make use of old computers. Toss in the re-sale value of $100-$200, and it's not worth the time and effort for a lot of people to re-sell or recycle. Yes, they should do better, but with that reality in mind you can easily construct a _correct_ causal model of "if I write slow, popular software then I there will be much more e-waste than if I had not done so."
  - fluoridation 2y ago
    Sure, but developers, and especially C++ and Rust developers, make up a small minority of the total market. The general statement "most people will throw in the garbage their old computer when buying a new one" may not apply in general to such an unusual subset. Like I said, it doesn't apply to me, and I've upgraded specifically to get better build times.
    - hansvm 2y ago