Breaking backwards compatiblity

Jonathan M Davis jmdavisProg at gmx.com
Sat Mar 10 13:22:43 PST 2012


On Saturday, March 10, 2012 16:08:28 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> With the exception of notably-expensive things like video processing, ever
> since CPUs hit the GHz mark (and arguably for some time before that), there
> has been *no* reason to blame slowness on anything other than shitty
> software.
> 
> My Apple IIc literally had more responsive text entry than at least half of
> the textarea boxes on the modern web. Slowness is *not* a hardware issue
> anymore, and hasn't been for a long time.
> 
> You know what *really* happens when you upgrade to a computer that's, say,
> twice as fast with twice as much memory? About 90% of the so-called
> "programmers" out there decide "Hey, now I can get away with my software
> being twice as slow and eat up twice as much memory! And it's all on *my
> user's* dime!" You're literally paying for programmer laziness.
> 
> I just stick with software that isn't bloated. I get just as much speed, but
> without all that cost.

Yeah. CPU is not the issue. I/O and/or memory tends to be the bottleneck for 
most stuff - at least for me. Getting a faster CPU wouldn't make my computer 
any more responsive.

> (Again, there are obviously exceptions, like video processing, DNA
> processing, etc.)

I do plenty of that sort of thing though, so CPU really does matter quite a 
bit to me, even if it doesn't affect my normal computing much. When transcoding 
video, CPU speed makes a _huge_ difference.

- Jonathan M Davis


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list