4 ms·

I wonder if there's some type of generational amnesia where the subjective definition of what constitutes fast gets slower and slower with time, where communica

I wonder if there's some type of generational amnesia where the subjective definition of what constitutes fast gets slower and slower with time, where communicating ones frustration with slow software is met with comments about how software is not actually slow.

pjmlp 2y ago
There is definitely one, see the amazement of Go compile times, versus what Turbo Pascal was doing on MS-DOS computers running at 20 MHz. Turbo Pascal is just an example from the days when C and C++ were yet to rule the Zeitgeist, and we had scripting all over the place.
- anthk 2y ago
  Free Pascal is not a powerhouse building large FP+SDL projects such as GearHead 1 and 2. A comparable 486 program for DOS would be almost as slow if it was backported to DOS+FPC.
  - pjmlp 2y ago
    Maybe, but that isn't Borland's Turbo Pascal compiler, nor Borland/Inprise/Embarcadero's Delphi. Most likely a consequence of how many compiler writers care about optimizations in FPC codebase.
- no1lives4ever 2y ago
  Turbo Pascal back in the day was super fast. One of the fastest compiled languages I had used before we had incremental compilers and background incremental compilation. C/C++ compilers have mostly been a lot slower than those old Turbo Pascal implementations. MS Quick C 1.1 was a notable exception in the C compiler space. It could do 1 pass in memory compilation of most c code. Modern frameworks feel way slower even with scripting languages that require no compiles. Coming to think of it, my 486 from early 90s when running DOS was one of the fastest computers I have used when it comes to bootup and applicaion load times. I was like type name of program, press enter and the program is up and ready to use. The systems that I had before that did take a lot longer to launch programs and anything with Windows has always felt an order of a magnitude slower. Modern tiny linux disros can match that speed, but then that is only with a very slimmed down system minus any gui. The MacBook Pro with M1 Pro did feel a lot faster than previous macs or windows machines when it came to application launch times and general gui responsiveness, but still no match to those DOS systems.
  - deterministic 2y ago
    My experience as well. Apparently the Turbo Pascal developer implemented the compiler as a one pass compiler generating machine code while parsing. It dramatically reduces memory usage and increase speed, while reducing the opportunity to optimize the machine code at a higher level.
- NonEUCitizen 2y ago
  Even the original Turbo Pascal for CP/M was fast (e.g. running on the 2MHz Z80 SoftCard for the Apple II).
pfdietz 2y ago
This is accompanied by surprised reactions when maintained and polished old implementations come across as fast. I'm thinking of you, Common Lisp. I think there's also the effect that old, polished software can tend to become increasingly optimized.

pjmlp 2y ago

There is definitely one, see the amazement of Go compile times, versus what Turbo Pascal was doing on MS-DOS computers running at 20 MHz. Turbo Pascal is just an example from the days when C and C++ were yet to rule the Zeitgeist, and we had scripting all over the place.

anthk 2y ago
Free Pascal is not a powerhouse building large FP+SDL projects such as GearHead 1 and 2. A comparable 486 program for DOS would be almost as slow if it was backported to DOS+FPC.
- pjmlp 2y ago
  Maybe, but that isn't Borland's Turbo Pascal compiler, nor Borland/Inprise/Embarcadero's Delphi. Most likely a consequence of how many compiler writers care about optimizations in FPC codebase.
no1lives4ever 2y ago
Turbo Pascal back in the day was super fast. One of the fastest compiled languages I had used before we had incremental compilers and background incremental compilation. C/C++ compilers have mostly been a lot slower than those old Turbo Pascal implementations. MS Quick C 1.1 was a notable exception in the C compiler space. It could do 1 pass in memory compilation of most c code. Modern frameworks feel way slower even with scripting languages that require no compiles. Coming to think of it, my 486 from early 90s when running DOS was one of the fastest computers I have used when it comes to bootup and applicaion load times. I was like type name of program, press enter and the program is up and ready to use. The systems that I had before that did take a lot longer to launch programs and anything with Windows has always felt an order of a magnitude slower. Modern tiny linux disros can match that speed, but then that is only with a very slimmed down system minus any gui. The MacBook Pro with M1 Pro did feel a lot faster than previous macs or windows machines when it came to application launch times and general gui responsiveness, but still no match to those DOS systems.
- deterministic 2y ago
  My experience as well. Apparently the Turbo Pascal developer implemented the compiler as a one pass compiler generating machine code while parsing. It dramatically reduces memory usage and increase speed, while reducing the opportunity to optimize the machine code at a higher level.
NonEUCitizen 2y ago
Even the original Turbo Pascal for CP/M was fast (e.g. running on the 2MHz Z80 SoftCard for the Apple II).

pfdietz 2y ago

This is accompanied by surprised reactions when maintained and polished old implementations come across as fast. I'm thinking of you, Common Lisp. I think there's also the effect that old, polished software can tend to become increasingly optimized.