Tim Shoppa wrote:
Yet nobody seems to be asking: WHY DOES IT TAKE 100
COMPUTERS TO DO WHAT
A SINGLE COMPUTER USED TO DO? After all, computers today are hundreds
of times more powerful (CPU-wise) than they used to be. Disk storage
is vastly more compact power efficient than it used to be.
As a species we're lazy and impatient as all hell. Nobody in any position to
change things is going to want to produce an efficient, elegant solution that
reduces costs in the long term if the money's there to just throw more
resources at a problem and make cost savings in the short term. If they don't
take that approach, somebody else will.
Long term thinking just doesn't enter into it; by the time the system's fallen
over into a smouldering heap the people responsible will long since have moved
on to the next short-term project, leaving new people to come in, reinvent the
wheel, and do the same thing all over again.
Why it's getting steadily worse, I don't know. I'm tempted to lay the blame at
the feet of faster and more widespread communications; if people can
communicate more quickly and further afield then there'll be more pressure to
get a job done as quickly as possible and with an eye to short-term savings only.
Had modern communications existed without computers, and the computer only
invented now, I expect we would have seen a raft of giant inefficient systems
springing up almost overnight and the specialised machines of past decades
just wouldn't have happened.