D
David Maynard
kony said:It'd be a poor point then, because it's a quite rational
It's one thing to believe, erroneously IMO, his point is rational but that
doesn't alter the one I just made in any way shape or form as it was a
generic point not tied to any other and quite valid in it's own right.
claim that hardware bloat is ridiculous.
That was not the claim he made.
I'm not arguing
that "all additional hardware horsepower has been absorbed"
though,
But that WAS the claim he made and what I was responding to.
rather that the developers seem to have little to no
concern about the escalating storage requirements nor memory
to run applications. Just because memory is far cheaper
than it used to be, that doesn't mean I find it acceptible
for a developer to take a view that they don't have to
follow good practices.
In the first place, I don't know that they "don't follow good practices"
but would you feel better if programs cost more with fewer features in
exchange for fitting in less memory? Because that choice is certainly
available and for less money as well.
I'm not saying that's the 'sole' reason but it's certainly one.
We could also debate whether we *want*, or agree with, some of those
'features' but that's another matter.
A better argument relating to automobiles is, what do I care
if i haul around 200 lbs. of bricks in my truck everywhere
even though I have no need for them, since my engine has the
extra power and efficiency over one made 40 years ago.
While it's a shame the car dealer couldn't be bothered to
take the bricks out of the trunk when it was sold to me, I
can still drive around therefore all is right in the world.
I disagree that it's a better example, or even consistent with your
argument, because it not only necessitates a presumption there's no reason
whatsoever to the 'bloat' but one also has to waste effort and resources
just to acquire/make and put the bricks in the car when being 'lazy', or
incompetent, the charge you seem to be making against the coders, would
leave them out.
Note that my car example made no assumptions about the merit of any
particular 'improvements' (an eye of the beholder type of thing), nor does
it claim monotonic improvement, just as I don't claim those things for any
particular moment in time for software.
However, over the long haul cars have become more complex and more powerful
all to go the same speed in a 35 MPH zone.
Now, I would contend they're also more comfortable, have better
acceleration, better handling characteristics, higher top end for freeway
cruising, are safer and a better value, among other things, but then the
point was one can make any irrational argument if you pick an appropriately
inappropriate criteria to measure against. So we use a 35 MPH zone and
ignore the rest.
It's a popular politician's trick (as is overstating a case to the point of
absurdity).
That may be a good point, or may not.
Suppose the video editing app had become more and more
bloated onto the point of being less efficient than it
should be. Suppose it's 10% slower as a result. 10% could
be considered the price different between two different
models of CPU, are you happy to pay more for the faster CPU
so the developer can profit more by not making the effort to
code better?
You're going to pay for it whether code gets better or worse and the
coding, on average, is going to be whatever 'the state of the art' is. If
it isn't then that company looses market share and/or goes out of business,
sooner or later, and the programmer is out of a job.
Passing the buck is ok as long as it doesn't
stop here.
But you're inventing a new argument. His was not a '10%' musing of the
margins. It's absolute: "all... has been absorbed." Praise be to Landru.