←back to thread

837 points turrini | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
titzer ◴[] No.43971962[source]
I like to point out that since ~1980, computing power has increased about 1000X.

If dynamic array bounds checking cost 5% (narrator: it is far less than that), and we turned it on everywhere, we could have computers that are just a mere 950X faster.

If you went back in time to 1980 and offered the following choice:

I'll give you a computer that runs 950X faster and doesn't have a huge class of memory safety vulnerabilities, and you can debug your programs orders of magnitude more easily, or you can have a computer that runs 1000X faster and software will be just as buggy, or worse, and debugging will be even more of a nightmare.

People would have their minds blown at 950X. You wouldn't even have to offer 1000X. But guess what we chose...

Personally I think the 1000Xers kinda ruined things for the rest of us.

replies(20): >>43971976 #>>43971990 #>>43972050 #>>43972107 #>>43972135 #>>43972158 #>>43972246 #>>43972469 #>>43972619 #>>43972675 #>>43972888 #>>43972915 #>>43973104 #>>43973584 #>>43973716 #>>43974422 #>>43976383 #>>43977351 #>>43978286 #>>43978303 #
_aavaa_ ◴[] No.43972050[source]
Except we've squandered that 1000x not on bounds checking but on countless layers of abstractions and inefficiency.
replies(6): >>43972103 #>>43972130 #>>43972215 #>>43974876 #>>43976159 #>>43983438 #
pydry ◴[] No.43972103[source]
Most of it was exchanged for abstractions which traded runtime speed for the ability to create apps quickly and cheaply.

The market mostly didn't want 50% faster code as much as it wanted an app that didn't exist before.

If I look at the apps I use on a day to day basis that are dog slow and should have been optimized (e.g. slack, jira), it's not really a lack of the industry's engineering capability to speed things up that was the core problem, it is just an instance the principal-agent problem - i.e. I'm not the one buying, I don't get to choose not to use it and dog-slow is just one of many the dimensions in which they're terrible.

replies(3): >>43972127 #>>43972262 #>>43975855 #
ffsm8 ◴[] No.43972262[source]
> Most of it was exchanged for abstractions which traded runtime speed for the ability to create apps quickly and cheaply.

Really? Because while abstractions like that exist (i.e. a webserver frameworks, reactivity, SQL and ORMs etc), I would argue that these aren't the abstractions that cause the most maintenance and performance issues. These are usually in the domain/business application and often not something that made anything quicker to develop or anything, but instead created by a developer that just couldn't help themselves

replies(2): >>43972341 #>>43972785 #
Tainnor ◴[] No.43972785{3}[source]
> ORMs

Certain ORMs such as Rails's ActiveRecord are part of the problem because they create the illusion that local memory access and DB access are the same thing. This can lead to N+1 queries and similar issues. The same goes for frameworks that pretend that remote network calls are just a regular method access (thankfully, such frameworks seem to have become largely obsolete).

replies(1): >>43973711 #
1. _aavaa_ ◴[] No.43973711{4}[source]
The fact that this was seen as an acceptable design decision both by the creators, and then taken up by the industry is in an of itself a sign of a serious issue.