<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;"><br>I just saw this <br><br>http://promotions.newegg.com/NEemail/June-0-2013/Weekend15/index-landing.html?nm_mc=EMC-EXPRESS061513&cm_mmc=EMC-EXPRESS061513-_-EMC-061513-Index-_-E0A-_-EditorsElite<br><br>Your Price: $109.99<br><br>In 1998 I worked for an HMO that employed about 650 people. If I remember correctly we had about 4GB of HD storage. My unit got 500MB.<br><br>Today I have more storage and possibly more computer horsepower in my little home office just for PHP Programming.<br><br>In the old days you needed to optimize for the machine because computers where very expensive, while labor in comparison was less expensive.<br><br>Today the top programmers are being well compensated. For a couple thousand you can build a very powerful computer that can do anything a $100,000/yr plus programmer would ever need. <br><br>So now we
optimize for labor. Labor is now where the real cost is.<br><br>In 1988 I was an intern with the city of Tucson. I was told the mainframe cost one million dollars. It was connected to hundreds of dumb terminals.<br><br>Today I might have more power in my home office at the cost of under $2000. And my computers are not water cooled like that mainframe. <br><br>It is a business decision.<br><br>------------------------<br>
Keith Smith<br><br>--- On <b>Fri, 6/14/13, Kevin Brown <i><kevinbrownbdc@gmail.com></i></b> wrote:<br><blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"><br>From: Kevin Brown <kevinbrownbdc@gmail.com><br>Subject: Re: Then vs Now Programming WAS: Re: AMD vs Intel memory managemement<br>To: plug-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org<br>Date: Friday, June 14, 2013, 11:00 PM<br><br><div class="plainMail"> "Anyone can cook. But not everyone can become a great chef."<br><br>As more and more people have gained access to the tools, the level of <br>proficiency to use said tools has dropped. One example from this thread.<br><br>"Linux used to be rock stable, now it crashes every three months"<br><br>More people are trying to make it work with more and disparate hardware. <br>That makes it harder and harder for a coder to really optimize the <br>performance of any given amount of code. So that optimization
comes in <br>later... at the compiler generally. This is why Intel spends so much on <br>their compiler and performance gains are seen just from changing <br>compilers. But that optimization comes at a price. It won't work as well <br>on AMD processors. It can't be used at all on Sparc, Power, etc...<br><br>The real bloat comes when you find out things like a microsoft developer <br>crammed a limited version of their Flight Simulator into Excel... and <br>that inclusion made it to release. Or the different ways you access <br>functions aren't the same code in the backend... which means they were <br>probably made by different developers at different times under different <br>conditions. So now you have multiple, similar yet different, copies of a <br>function in the compiled code. Same thing with Linux and all the <br>different libraries and GUIs and other applications...<br><br>> John carmack has similar rants and epiphanies on his twitter
feed.<br>><br>> On Friday, June 14, 2013, Dazed_75 wrote:<br>><br>> Nevertheless, as one of those old-timers, I have to be concerned<br>> at the apparent total disregard for code efficiency. Far too many<br>> of the tools to make design and development efficient do so with<br>> inexcusably crappy code in the tools themselves.<br>><br>> The tools still need to be at least cognizant of efficiency or<br>> they will produce exponentially inefficient code. That is a<br>> complete and total waste of resources. If I am rich, it does not<br>> follow that I should be ignorant and throw stacks of money into<br>> the wind lest I become not rich. On the other hand, spending my<br>>
riches wisely can make me a better businessman and able to be a<br>> better human being while retaining the richness to continue doing so.<br>><br>> So don't ignore efficient code as a waste of money, but choose<br>> wisely when to be spendthrift and when to be profligate.<br>><br>><br>><br>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Paul Mooring <<a ymailto="mailto:paul@opscode.com" href="/mc/compose?to=paul@opscode.com">paul@opscode.com</a>><br>> wrote:<br>><br>> I think as an extension of this thought, there's still plenty<br>> of systems programs writing really "tight" code. The linux<br>> kernel for example is pretty efficient, in my opinion it's
on<br>> par with ye programmers of old. The difference now a days<br>> there's a *lot* more programmers and the field is much easier<br>> to get in to.<br>><br>> Paul Mooring<br>> Operations Engineer<br>> www.opscode.com <<a href="http://www.opscode.com" target="_blank">http://www.opscode.com</a>><br>><br>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> *From:* <a ymailto="mailto:plug-discuss-bounces@lists.phxlinux.org" href="/mc/compose?to=plug-discuss-bounces@lists.phxlinux.org">plug-discuss-bounces@lists.phxlinux.org</a> on behalf of<br>>
Kevin Fries<br>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 6:43 PM<br>><br>> *To:* Main PLUG discussion list<br>> *Subject:* RE: Then vs Now Programming WAS: Re: AMD vs Intel<br>> memory managemement<br>><br>> I think there is a big reality being missed here. Back in the<br>> "old days" when developers wrote "tight" code, that was out of<br>> necessity not out of some higher purpose. Computers did not<br>> do much, spell checkers were a luxury, as were point and click<br>> interfaces. I remember spending more money for my first 10MB<br>>
hard drive than i would spend for a 1TB today. The price to<br>> write this tight code today is too high for the benefit it<br>> would bring. Yes code is more bloated today, but if you take<br>> a look at the bloat in proportion to the increase in memory,<br>> disk, and network speed, it could be argued that software has<br>> gotten smaller, not larger.<br>><br>> Just my $0.02<br>><br>> Kevin<br>><br>> On Jun 13, 2013 2:03 PM, "Carruth, Rusty"<br>> <<a ymailto="mailto:Rusty.Carruth@smartstoragesys.com"
href="/mc/compose?to=Rusty.Carruth@smartstoragesys.com">Rusty.Carruth@smartstoragesys.com</a>> wrote:<br>><br>> IMHO, the answer is yes. And the answer is no.<br>><br>> Operating systems in ‘the olde days’ were REALLY small,<br>> and didn’t do much. No gui, for one! (Well, ok, on the IBM<br>> 1130 I used the GUI was the flashing lights on the console!)<br>><br>><br>> Shoot, the entire boot loader fit on a single 80 column<br>> punch card. The card had I think 12 bit positions per<br>> column, so that means we could load a program
(from<br>> cards!) with 120 bytes of program. The computer ran 16 bit<br>> instructions, so that means in 60 instructions we could<br>> read binary data from the card reader (12 bits at a time),<br>> and store it into memory!<br>><br>> FORTRAN (and later C) and assembly language were probably<br>> the primary languages in use for applications.<br>><br>> As James said: “Cache? We don’t need no stinkin’cache!” <br>> Cache was a luxury that Idon’t think we even considered…<br>><br>>
I’m not sure how much is language bloat, and how much is<br>> (perceived?) lack of need to be careful abo<br>><br>> -- <br>> Dazed_75 a.k.a. Larry<br>><br>> Please protect my address like I protect yours. When sending<br>> messages to multiple recipients, use the BCC: (Blind carbon copy).<br>> Remove addresses from a forwarded message body before clicking Send.<br>><br>><br>><br>> -- <br>> A mouse trap, placed on top of your alarm clock, will prevent you from <br>> rolling over and going back to sleep after you hit the snooze button.<br>><br>> Stephen<br>><br>><br>> ---------------------------------------------------<br>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - <a
ymailto="mailto:PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org" href="/mc/compose?to=PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org">PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org</a><br>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:<br>> <a href="http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss</a><br><br>---------------------------------------------------<br>PLUG-discuss mailing list - <a ymailto="mailto:PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org" href="/mc/compose?to=PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org">PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org</a><br>To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:<br><a href="http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss</a><br></div></blockquote></td></tr></table>