Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Wed 22nd Mar 2006 18:08 UTC
"Newer software does try to be sexier by doing flashy things such as the talking paperclip. This causes a tendency for the software to bloat to the point of saturation, i.e. until it performs at barely acceptable speeds. But application programming seems to get worse with faster processors. Even with more memory, faster disks and multiple CPUs, your average web application runs slower. Is it possible that the faster hardware has made us worse programmers?"
Thread beginning with comment 107001
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-06
That's highly dependent on the algorithm in question. Most "complicated" algorithms I've seen are rarely more than a constant factor of 2 or 3 slower than the simple alternative, and are vastly faster for large data sets. Also, remember that in most cases, performance isn't particularly critical for small data sets anyway. If you're writing an iPhoto competitor, an O(1) algorithm that takes 0.5 seconds with 100 photos is better than an O(n) algorithm that takes 0.1 seconds with 100 photos. Both are "fast enough" for the small case, but the former is far better for the cases where performance will truely be relevant --- large data sets.
More generally, my point is that if you're trying to figure out what makes software slow, don't look at the ASM, look at the algorithms. Excess I/O, excess IPC, bad asmyptotic behavior, cache thrasing, etc, are all far more likely candidates than a few wasted cycles here or there.