←back to thread

The world could run on older hardware if software optimization was a priority

(twitter.com)
838 points turrini | 3 comments | 13 May 25 10:31 UTC | HN request time: 0.414s | source
Show context
cogman10 ◴[13 May 25 15:27 UTC] No.43974007[source]▶
I'm going to be pretty blunt. Carmack gets worshiped when he shouldn't be. He has several bad takes in terms of software. Further, he's frankly behind the times when it comes to the current state of the software ecosystem.

I get it, he's legendary for the work he did at id software. But this is the guy who only like 5 years ago was convinced that static analysis was actually a good thing for code.

He seems to have a perpetual view on the state of software. Interpreted stuff is slow, networks are slow, databases are slow. Everyone is working with Pentium 1s and 2MB of ram.

None of these are what he thinks they are. CPUs are wicked fast. Interpreted languages are now within a single digit multiple of natively compiled languages. Ram is cheap and plentiful. Databases and networks are insanely fast.

Good on him for sharing his takes, but really, he shouldn't be considered a "thought leader". I've noticed his takes have been outdated for over a decade.

I'm sure he's a nice guy, but I believe he's fallen into a trap that many older devs do. He's overestimating what the costs of things are because his mental model of computing is dated.

replies(2): >>43975300 #>>43982378 #
1. oblio ◴[14 May 25 08:53 UTC] No.43982378[source]▶
> But this is the guy who only like 5 years ago was convinced that static analysis was actually a good thing for code.

Why isn't it?

> Interpreted stuff is slow

Well, it is. You can immediately tell the difference between most C/C++/Rust/... programs and Python/Ruby/... Either because they're implicitly faster (nature) or they foster an environment where performance matters (nurture), it doesn't matter, the end result (adult) is what matters.

> networks are slow

Networks are fast(er), but they're still slow for most stuff. Gmail is super nice, but it's slower than almost desktop email program that doesn't have legacy baggage stretching back 2-3 decades.

replies(2): >>43982807 #>>43989891 #
2. cogman10 ◴[14 May 25 22:35 UTC] No.43989891[source]▶
> Why isn't it?

I didn't say it isn't good. I'm saying that Carmack wasn't convinced of the utility until much later after the entire industry had adopted it. 5 years is wrong (time flies) it was 2011 when he made statements about how it's actually a good thing.

> Well, it is.

Not something I'm disputing. I'm disputing the degree of slowness, particularly in languages with good JITs such as Java and Javascript. There's an overestimation on how much the language matters.

> Gmail is super nice, but it's slower than almost desktop email program

Now that's a weird comparison.

A huge portion of what makes gmail slow is that it's a gigantic and at this point somewhat dated javascript application.

Look, not here to defend JS as the UX standard of modern app dev, I don't love it.

What I'm talking about slow networks is mainly in terms of backend servers talking to one another. Because of the speed of light, there's always going to be some major delays moving data out of the datacenter into a consumer device. Within the datacenter, however, things will be pretty dang nippy.

3. cogman10 ◴[14 May 25 22:36 UTC] No.43989900[source]▶
Wrongo.

I'm primarily a backend dev doing Java. I've had my opinion about Carmack for a while.

You're just hurt that I criticized someone you like.