25 Oct
2011
25 Oct
'11
1:02 p.m.
On 10/25/2011 03:51 PM, Richard wrote:
On 25 Oct 2011 at 18:15, Dave Caroline wrote:
Perhaps, but "the rest of the world" is producing operating systems
that require billions of bytes of memory and billions of clock cycles
per second just to BOOT.
I respectfully submit that they don't, in fact, know as much as they
think they do, but they want fast machines on their desks.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
An easy cure is give developers slow machines
with limited memory and
slow disk subsystems. I do that to myself. I find it a good way to
discover the "right way" TM
This is a recipe for expensive software. I've seen this idea floated
verbally more than once, but any company that ever cared about
performance or memory footprint (and there are plenty) never did
this, and for good reason. It makes your software ridiculously
expensive because you cripple the productivity of every person
working on it. You're better off developing automated benchmarks
against your software that test the performance or footprint sizes
and having those benchmarks fail with a noisy report as soon as
someone steps across the "that's too much" threshold.
If most of the people in the world aren't doing what you think is
smart, then perhaps you should look deeper into the situation before
declaring the rest of those people idiots. Maybe they know something
you don't.