UFCS for D

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 04:21:12 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <a at a.a> wrote:

> "Nick Sabalausky" <a at a.a> wrote in message
> news:jl3n59$qf7$1 at digitalmars.com...

>>
>> Yea, I've seen that. It's a very good article, though. Although I've  
>> been
>> saying this since before that article, and even before multi-cores.
>> Contrary to the title, I wasn't at all surprised which won ;)
>>
>> Of course, I don't expect software to be as super-fine-tuned as it was  
>> on,
>> say, the Apple 2 or Atari 2600. There *is* definitely some value in
>> loosing a certain amount of performance to abstractions, up to a point.
>> But we've blown way, way, WAAAY beyond that point.
>>
>> It's sickening how much gratuitous waste there is in a lot of "modern"
>> software, and really for not much benefit, as D proves.

100% agree.  There has been a huge trend in software to disregard  
performance because "the hardware will take care of it."  Interestingly  
enough though, performance still turns heads :)  That is, when faced with  
two applications that do the same thing, but one is twice as fast, most  
people will choose (and probably pay more for) the faster one.

> Actually, one thing that really gets me is shutdown times: RAM is
> *volitile*. How much processing can really be needed when the RAM's just
> gonna get wiped anyway? You ask the user if they want to save, you flush  
> the
> output queues for anything non-volitile, and you cut the power. Sheesh!

One of the things I was extremely impressed with on my new macbook is that  
it usually shuts down in under 2 seconds.

> Desktops are the worst offenders, and paricularly WinXP.

Windows 7 is vastly better at both startup and shutdown than WinXP.  I  
think part of the problem is that shutdown on these systems defers to the  
user applications.  Sometimes I shutdown, and come back the next day to  
find it was still asking me some questions.  Grrrr.  Now I have to answer  
the questions, let it power off, then power back on again.  The apps  
should save enough state so they can resume the next day without issue  
(this is how the mac seems to work, and I love it).

> But then even on my
> brother's PS3, you can literally count the seconds before it actually  
> turns
> off. It's just a set-top gaming console, is that really necessary? (They  
> can
> spare me their "It does everything!" - like I give a crap about any of  
> those
> gimmicks.) On my old (super-low-power) NES, you could hit the power  
> button,
> and within one second you were at the title screen.

You must have had a different version of NES.  The process to start mine  
up was not nearly as fast.  It went something like this:

1. Insert cartridge, push down cartridge, power on.  (I cite this as one  
step because it became automatic to do this in 2 seconds)
2. Screen with horribly large pixellated game appears.
3. Power off, pull out cartridge.
4. Blow in bottom of cartridge, even though the pins are clean and free of  
dust (did this actually ever do anything?)
5. Re-insert cartridge, this time more firmly, push down deliberately to  
make sure game locks into place
6. Power on, normal screen comes up, push start button.
7. Play for about 2 minutes, game hangs with single audio tone.
8. Bang hand on top of NES to show it you mean business.  Sometimes it  
will whimper back to playing mode.
9. After second hang, attempt to press reset button about 15 times.   
Peanut-sized pixels return.
10. Power off, remove catridge, repeat blowing procedure from step 4, but  
with slower more deliberate breath.  Try a blowing pattern, like quick  
bursty blows in various locations.  Insert cartidge even MORE firmly.   
Jiggle cartridge a bit to make sure the NES is aware there is a valid game  
for it to consume.
11. Lower cartridge, power on.  Play game for another 5 minutes.
12. After next hang, turn power off, and watch cartoons.

I exaggerate a bit :)  But sometimes I swear it was like this.  I don't  
miss those days, though I don't get to play many video games these days.   
I'm waiting for my kids to get old enough to play them so I can mooch off  
of their video game time :)

> Some of that stuff isn't even a technical matter at all, but deliberate
> design: Who the hell decided we need twenty company logos (fully  
> animated,
> one at a time), then 10+ minutes of exposition and building "atmosphere",
> followed by half an hour of (typically patronizing) tutorials before
> actually getting to the real gameplay? Zelda Skyward Sword is the worst
> offender, it literally takes *hours* to get past all the initial  
> exposition,
> tutorials and shit into the real core of the game (I honestly started
> wondering if there even *was* a game - "Did I pick up a Harry Potter  
> movie
> by mistake?"). The original Zelda, you could get from power off to the  
> meat
> of the gameplay in literally seconds. Game devs won't let you do that  
> now:
> They've gotta show off their cinematography so they can get hired by  
> Pixar,
> where they *really* wanted to be all along. (Meh, Dreamworks was always
> better anyway ;) )

When I bought the new Wii motion plus (that gives better sensitivity) with  
Wii Sports Resort, the first time you play, it makes you watch 8 minutes  
of instructional video on how to use your Wii motion plus.  I thought at  
the time "Wow, that was a bit long, but I guess I only have to do it  
once."  Then I went to my sister-in-law's house, and wanted to show her  
the game.  This was *her* Wii's first time playing the game, so again, I  
had to watch the damn video (no way to skip).  It happened a third time on  
my parents' Wii, and I was thinking "Man, this was a *bad* design  
decision".

-Steve