Live data from Hacker News

Did we lose our way in making efficient software?

rufatmammadli.medium.com

31–40 of 515 posts

Re: Did we lose our way in making efficient software?

#31
post #14

I may be way off-base here but this is what I imagine the problem is: 1. Company executive decides their developers need top-of-the-line hardware to remain competitive in today's market 2. Developers make web apps on their company-provided M5 Ultra Pro Max 128GB RAM powerhouse laptop 3. They never test it on their father's old 2010 family PC, or at least they don't test often/thoroughly enough to realize many parts a…

[dead]

Re: Did we lose our way in making efficient software?

#32
post #3

Remember the QNX demo floppy?

I recreated that in grad school, also using QNX. We set it up to run a paging (POCSAG) system that you could put the floppy into any computer, hook up a DSP board and modulator, reboot the machine and you'd have a paging system. My advisor showed it to Andrew Viterbi, and got us grant.

When I went to recreate it, I contacted QNX and asked if I could speak to the guy who did the work, and he had died the year before. So, I just took apart his floppy, and figured out how he did it.

The things you can do when you invest your time 100% in something.

Re: Did we lose our way in making efficient software?

#33
Substack is a good example as well. Literally cannot render simple text and image articles without visible and annoying lags. If there are several hundred comments it can take tens of seconds to finish rendering. With functionality that was figured out in early 90s...

Re: Did we lose our way in making efficient software?

#34

In the early 90s, I believe MS Word came on a few floppy disks and the main executable was 2MB. It ran fine on a 16Mhz 386 with a total of 2MB RAM (let that sink in!) It did pretty much everything it does now, only lacked a grammar checker. (WordPerfect had one.) Now we measure things in GB units. 1000X bigger, but what was gained? We not only lost the way, we don’t even know the destination any more.

> Now we measure things in GB units. 1000X bigger, but what was gained?

Functionality and graphics.

For instance 'dict.words' alone on Linux is 4.8MB. Arial Unicode is a 20MB-ish font. The icon for an application I work on is 400K. The Google Crashpad handler for handling crashes is somewhere around several MB.

A 4K true color display is 138 times larger than 640x480x16 colors.

Re: Did we lose our way in making efficient software?

#35

In the early 90s, I believe MS Word came on a few floppy disks and the main executable was 2MB. It ran fine on a 16Mhz 386 with a total of 2MB RAM (let that sink in!) It did pretty much everything it does now, only lacked a grammar checker. (WordPerfect had one.) Now we measure things in GB units. 1000X bigger, but what was gained? We not only lost the way, we don’t even know the destination any more.

Our docker file for running some ML code at work is 6GiB. That does not include the model files. What the fuck, Nvidia? Am I downloading thousands of permutations of generated code for things I’ll never use?

*Docker image, not Dockerfile

Re: Did we lose our way in making efficient software?

#36
post #14

I may be way off-base here but this is what I imagine the problem is: 1. Company executive decides their developers need top-of-the-line hardware to remain competitive in today's market 2. Developers make web apps on their company-provided M5 Ultra Pro Max 128GB RAM powerhouse laptop 3. They never test it on their father's old 2010 family PC, or at least they don't test often/thoroughly enough to realize many parts a…

Related point, do google android engineers dogfood android phones to themselves? I guess most of them would be Apple users.

Re: Did we lose our way in making efficient software?

#37
post #17
post #6

I want to make native apps but Apple and Microsoft seem to be trying really hard to stop me. I have to buy developer accounts, buy certificates for signing binaries, share 30% of my revenue with them for barely any reason and so on. Not to mention the mess they've introduced in their APIs - especially Microsoft. So of course we choose the much simpler, much cheaper way of the web.

You can't use Qt?

You will still be in binary sign hell and Windows Defender may wake up one day and decide your app is a virus "when it does X", which is exactly it's business case. Complaining to MS will do nothing since their online thing will check and not find anything. Boom, entire software business gone for reason out of control. Doesn't care about your signed certificate too.

Re: Did we lose our way in making efficient software?

#38
post #6

I want to make native apps but Apple and Microsoft seem to be trying really hard to stop me. I have to buy developer accounts, buy certificates for signing binaries, share 30% of my revenue with them for barely any reason and so on. Not to mention the mess they've introduced in their APIs - especially Microsoft. So of course we choose the much simpler, much cheaper way of the web.

"Barely any reason"... except they created and maintain the entire plarform and tooling that you're building on. And in Apple's case they give it away for free with any mac. I'm old enough to remember when buying development tooling for DOS or Windows was $$$$$$

They had a $100 yearly dev fee for ios.

Re: Did we lose our way in making efficient software?

#40
post #6

I want to make native apps but Apple and Microsoft seem to be trying really hard to stop me. I have to buy developer accounts, buy certificates for signing binaries, share 30% of my revenue with them for barely any reason and so on. Not to mention the mess they've introduced in their APIs - especially Microsoft. So of course we choose the much simpler, much cheaper way of the web.

You don’t have to do any of that for a native Mac app. Signing it is a good idea but not required and you can distribute it from your own website or even from GitHub/Lab where you can tell people it’s not notarized and they’ll need to command click and open it the first time.
Post reply on HN