101–110 of 219 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Muratori's main talking point seems to be that modern software is slow. I think he is 100% correct on this. It's absolutely insane how long it takes jira to show me a ticket or slack to switch chat rooms and that vscode can't keep with up with normal typing speed.
He's right about software being slow. He's wrong about why they are slow or how to solve the problem.
I teach the systems class at Montana State, where we go from transistors up to a real computing system, and I have students that don't understand what a file system really is when they start my class I agree that blow is wrong on some details, but I really think we need to be thinking hard around a NAND-to-Tetris style education that starts in high school for our technical students. I use "outdated" models like Littl…
"I teach the systems class at Montana State," You teach and hence deal with this: "Information passed on between generations is diluted" Is it diluted? No it isn't. Your job is teaching and books and computers help us avoid calling you a bard 8) Mind you, being called a bard is not a bad thing! In the end this is a blog post response to another blog post. I have no idea about how "important" those bloggers are but I…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Taiwan doesn’t “design” any leading edge chip they manufacture them. Where are the great chios from Korea? The top Android phones are four years behind iPhones as far as performance - including those from Samsung
Don't discount MediaTek, and four years is an exaggeration.
https://browser.geekbench.com/mobile-benchmarks
MediaTek is definitely not releasing high end chips. For desktop ARM, the only ones that come close are Qualcomm’s chip
I teach the systems class at Montana State, where we go from transistors up to a real computing system, and I have students that don't understand what a file system really is when they start my class I agree that blow is wrong on some details, but I really think we need to be thinking hard around a NAND-to-Tetris style education that starts in high school for our technical students. I use "outdated" models like Littl…
Computer science, despite the misnomer, is not about computers, even if computers are an indispensable tool in the field. Computer science is all about abstraction and language modeling of a domain and their application; the computing technology of the tool, however important practically, is an implementation detail. Just as it pays for the astronomer to understand how to operate his telescope in due proportion to his needs as an astronomer, it pays for the computer science person to understand how to operate his computer to the degree that he needs to. But it is a total mistake to place the computer at the center of the universe and treat it as the point of departure for what computer science is really about. This muddles things and is a source of much historical confusion in the field, and in fact, this discussion.
In fact, even the language of "low-level" programming or whatever is abstraction and language. It is simply the language of the computing device that must be used to simulate the abstractions of the domain of discourse.
I teach the systems class at Montana State, where we go from transistors up to a real computing system, and I have students that don't understand what a file system really is when they start my class I agree that blow is wrong on some details, but I really think we need to be thinking hard around a NAND-to-Tetris style education that starts in high school for our technical students. I use "outdated" models like Littl…
The problem is, your best minds, whom you regard as being "technical," ironically simply don't have the pedagogical and epistemological axioms needed for possessing the sensibility that can conceptualize and eventually abstract away the fundamental principles of the technology civilization presently enjoys. Not just young students, but so too is lacking the experts, leaders, teachers, and supposedly prolific and empl…
Absolutely terrible take -- strong subjectivity and defeatist sentiment.
> While in actuality reality can and will go on without humanity.
Sure but in that case you won't be here to consider it. There's no considering such a situation, so there's no use considering such a situation. Push onwards!
> As if the constant string of inconsistencies in quantum physics wasn't proof enough of the ineffectiveness of mathematics as well as science in achieving knowledge.
We're never going to understand everything about everything. That is half the fun! How you got from there to "Humans are physiologically incapable of doing or understanding anything significant" is beyond me.
Stop paying attention to quantum mechanics, and start paying attention to what's important to you. The kinds of things that made you truly happy as a child. Make model train sets or 7 day roguelikes. Make box fortresses for your cats. Make your neighbors lives a little bit better. Talk to a neighbor you've never talked to about the weather or something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's right about software being slow. He's wrong about why they are slow or how to solve the problem.
What is your opinion on the cause and the solution?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The real problem is that we have a broken, anti-performance culture. We have allowed "premature optimizaiton is the root of all evil" to morph into "optimization is the root of all evil. That single quote has done untold damage to the software industry. We don't need to pass laws to force all programmers worldwide to do anything. Fixing our culture will be enough. In my view, that's what Casey is trying to do.
I don't believe this is the root cause, computers got faster, and software got quicker to the state of "run good enough". I'm calling Wirth's law on it. "Clean code" is indeed often a bad idea, but you are overestimating the impact. Even software written by people caring very much about performance consume way more than it theoretically should. Plus, if this was that simple, people would have already rewritten all th…
It's frankly insulting you think Casey brainwashed me into this stance, when it's been obvious to me since long before I'd ever heard of him. IDGAF if code is clean or not. I care that Jira can display a new ticket in less than 15 seconds. I care that vscode actually keeps up with the characters I type. None of this software is remotely close to "runs good enough".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The real problem is that we have a broken, anti-performance culture. We have allowed "premature optimizaiton is the root of all evil" to morph into "optimization is the root of all evil. That single quote has done untold damage to the software industry. We don't need to pass laws to force all programmers worldwide to do anything. Fixing our culture will be enough. In my view, that's what Casey is trying to do.
I don't believe this is the root cause, computers got faster, and software got quicker to the state of "run good enough". I'm calling Wirth's law on it. "Clean code" is indeed often a bad idea, but you are overestimating the impact. Even software written by people caring very much about performance consume way more than it theoretically should. Plus, if this was that simple, people would have already rewritten all th…
And since software can be rebuilt and replicated with virtually zero cost, there is no intrinsic pressure to keep unit costs down as it happens in industry, where it tends to keeps physical products simple.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't believe this is the root cause, computers got faster, and software got quicker to the state of "run good enough". I'm calling Wirth's law on it. "Clean code" is indeed often a bad idea, but you are overestimating the impact. Even software written by people caring very much about performance consume way more than it theoretically should. Plus, if this was that simple, people would have already rewritten all th…
Wirth's law doesn't bolster your point. He observed software is getting slower at a more rapid rate than computers are getting faster. Which is the whole point. We write increasingly slow, increasingly shitty code each year. I read and hear this attitude all the time that is basically "if you optimize something, you're bad at your job, only juniors try to do that". That's a culture problem. It's frankly insulting you…
I completely agree that many apps are horrendously slow, but given the alternative are hard pressed to arrive, I can only conclude they are considered "good enough" for our current tech level.
The difficulty involved in rewriting modern apps is one of the reason I would give that result in slow software. Can't really complain about the number of independent web browsers when you look at the spec. Ensuring the software we use is easily reimplementable by a few or one developer in a few days would go a long way improving performance.
Another reason would be the constant need to rewrite working code, to work on new platforms, to support some new trendy framework, etc. etc. You cannot properly optimize without some sort of stability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is, your best minds, whom you regard as being "technical," ironically simply don't have the pedagogical and epistemological axioms needed for possessing the sensibility that can conceptualize and eventually abstract away the fundamental principles of the technology civilization presently enjoys. Not just young students, but so too is lacking the experts, leaders, teachers, and supposedly prolific and empl…
> Humans are physiologically incapable of doing or understanding anything significant. Absolutely terrible take -- strong subjectivity and defeatist sentiment. > While in actuality reality can and will go on without humanity. Sure but in that case you won't be here to consider it. There's no considering such a situation, so there's no use considering such a situation. Push onwards! > As if the constant string of inco…
And what if I derived pleasure from mastering quantum mechanics, like some sort of strange alien that, for some, foreign, reason, had a huge fancy for physics that touches deep down into interesting rabbit holes? Not only that alternative preference, but what if I had a situation where comprehensive knowledge was a requirement, rather than an optional leisure in a sea of other freedoms? Surely, then, holisticism or completeness would be a priority for the alternative scientist and engineer.
We can only conclude from our social interaction something like a physical difference between the anthropocentric and the transhumanist, at the least. Which leads to questions of what are the properties of this division. And why it exists. To get the ball rolling in some neo-globalist societal engineering that is going to be very awesome.