Is C++ necessary for some libraries over C?

[Dat Guy]

Just now, wasab said:

people can literally keep their old computer and not upgrade for 10 years

 

You'd probably like that.
But I understand that you don't really care about wasting resources. You have enough of them. For my part, I consider this discussion to be fruitless and will therefore withdraw from it.

[wasab]

7 minutes ago, Dat Guy said:

 

You'd probably like that.
But I understand that you don't really care about wasting resources. You have enough of them. For my part, I consider this discussion to be fruitless and will therefore withdraw from it.

OK, whatever. Developer does not generally code on a potato machine with limited ram btw. Rust can be used for embedded too, you just don't write rust on embedded. 

[Likwid]

On 4/6/2024 at 6:08 AM, Dat Guy said:

 

Because almost every day I come across people whose computers are fully utilised with a web browser and two other open applications that are essentially in idle mode. We need more and more computing power for fewer and fewer tasks. How much longer do you think this can go on?

It's quite hard to write efficient code, had to get new test pc ar work from ryzen 6 core to 16 core because collegue couln't optimise code and spent 4 months optimizing it and got only 10-15% improvement, when I heard that it took me 2 weeks to cut 3/4 of code and reduce cpu usage by 6-7 times.

[WhitetailAni]

On 4/5/2024 at 7:03 PM, Dat Guy said:

 

And eats more RAM.

Compilation is not a constant workload and is not done by the people who will use your software (probably).

[Dat Guy]

1 hour ago, Likwid said:

It's quite hard to write efficient code

Which is why people exist who are paid for that.

[wasab]

On 4/22/2024 at 11:15 AM, Dat Guy said:

Which is why people exist who are paid for that.

People get paid based on how fast efficiently they can ship out a new feature, not how fast efficiently the code runs. Ask any major tech companies. 

[Dat Guy]

6 hours ago, wasab said:

People get paid based on how fast efficiently they can ship out a new feature, not how fast efficiently the code runs.

In your company, maybe. It might surprise you to learn that there are companies specialized in making code efficient.

[Gat Pelsinger]

How tf is this thread still running?

[wasab]

2 hours ago, Dat Guy said:

In your company, maybe. It might surprise you to learn that there are companies specialized in making code efficient.

Nope, performance of the code is only one pillar of shipping out a feature and never the most important pillar at that. Any good engineering manager would tell you this. Rather, it is done incrementally and treated with the same priority and urgency as refactoring out legacy code, that is to say, ignore until needed. Especially so for user applications instead of system libraries. Seems like you are out of touch.

 

I've review countless PRs, I am not impressed if I see fancy alogrithms doing fancy dynamic programming whose look up table is a fancy recursively transversed red black tree when all it needed is a simple double for loop. Downright silly to write every single piece of code as if you are working with an embedded device with no more 100mb of ram and 500mhz processor. 

 

You better tell me it has a well deserve reason to be written that way before I throw the PR into the trash bin. Considering 99% of an application performance is only bottleneck by 1% or so segments of the codebase, what you are suggesting is ridiculously stupid. Premature optimization, rookies mistakes, as much a mistake as rookie PC builders for sticking in a rtx 4080 into a computer with a celeron processor or someone upgrading to a 10gig killer wifi network card when his internet service providers only support up to 50mbps internet. silly analogies but that is exactly what you silly performance min maxers on everything are doing.

 

Chasing after performance and optimization that make absolutely no sense. Cool, your app uses 100mb less ram. So what? Why? Microsoft edge uses less ram than chrome. Is it taking over the browser market share and making its parent company boatloads of money?  

[Dat Guy]

34 minutes ago, wasab said:

Downright silly to write every single piece of code as if you are working with an embedded device with no more 100mb of ram and 500mhz processor. 

Statements like this are the exact reason why today’s software is written this way: a text editor eats half a GiB of RAM while idling, two web browser windows force you to close one other application so you won’t run out of resources…

 

I know, “we” (who?) “all” have “unlimited resources” now. That’s not because computers have become any faster - it’s because software has become greedy.

[wasab]

25 minutes ago, Dat Guy said:

Statements like this are the exact reason why today’s software is written this way: a text editor eats half a GiB of RAM while idling, two web browser windows force you to close one other application so you won’t run out of resources…

 

I know, “we” (who?) “all” have “unlimited resources” now. That’s not because computers have become any faster - it’s because software has become greedy.

Dude, it is silly considering the bottleneck is never the lack of ram in the first place. When have you seen a computer suffering performance issue for running out of memory on a mere text editor? Half a gig is more than an exaggeration as well.

 

 

You seem to think performance optimization is a free lunch, that you somehow can magically squeeze out more performance out of your software for free at zero cost. Nope. If you are gonna hard limit and cut down the ram usuage of your application to the same level like how it was back in the 1990s, it will have no where the resources it needs to run all the pretty gui interfaces, animations, and all the bells and whistles it needs to compete with everything up to date and decently modern stuffs out there. It is feature poor, and consumers would walk away if not outright mocking it. You think they would be impressed by a 1990s windows 98 operating system that can run on 1 gig ram as oppose to the modern day windows 10/11 we have now? 

 

Now mentioning back to nothing is a free lunch, you are also doing extra work for absolutely no reason! To improve any performance, you first identity a bottleneck, you dont just do it out of blue. Otherwise it will have ZERO impact and ZERO benefits simply because it is NOT needed. Performance will still be the same. Going back to that text editor for example, an user on any decently modern computer will experience ZERO performance improvement from your 100mb or so reduce ram usuage. They will notice ABSOLUTLY NOTHING. 

 

What they will noticed however is perhaps some reduction on features and for you the software developers, you will noticed shit tons more work, super complicated and hard to maintain code base, and more importantly, never be able to keep up with the competitions who can ship out market share stealing features constantly.

 

So.... see? I am pointing out the reality. 

[Dat Guy]

1 minute ago, wasab said:

Half a gig is more than an exaggeration as well.

I measured Visual Studio Code on Windows 10 a while ago and I wish it was an exaggeration. Glad there are alternatives.

 

2 minutes ago, wasab said:

You seem to think performance optimization is a free lunch, that you somehow can magically squeeze out more perofrmance out of your software for free at zero cost.

I told you there were people who are paid for that. At least you got my point now.

 

3 minutes ago, wasab said:

it will have no where the resources it needs to all the pretty gui interfaces, animations, and all the bells and wistles it needs to compete with everything up to date and decently modern stuffs out there

Windows and macOS have very decent OS-level GUI APIs. Of course you could just shove a bunch of frameworks upon it and be done with your day, or you use what’s there and still have nice GUIs.

 

5 minutes ago, wasab said:

you are also doing extra work for absolutely no reason!

Having efficient software is a reason.

 

It’s good to know that you have enough money to buy a new computer every few years so you can run the latest software which can’t do much more than 90s text editors but will still eat magnitudes more resources just because the developers don’t care.

 

Many people can’t.

[wasab]

12 minutes ago, Dat Guy said:

Windows and macOS have very decent OS-level GUI APIs. Of course you could just shove a bunch of frameworks upon it and be done with your day, or you use what’s there and still have nice GUIs.

Dude, these won't cut your ram usuage to the same level back in the 1990s if going off your very silly baseline benchmark used for comparison. 

 

You are arguing a lost cause. We are shipping out softwares that run on modern machine, not whatever potatoes that is like less than 1% of user base.

[Dat Guy]

1 minute ago, wasab said:

We are shipping out softwares that run on modern machine, not whatever potatoes that is like less than 1% of user base.

You do, I won’t. Maybe I’m not misanthropic enough.

[ToboRobot]

10 hours ago, wasab said:

People get paid based on how fast efficiently they can ship out a new feature, not how fast efficiently the code runs. Ask any major tech companies. 

It depends.

Do you think Meta hired Carmack to pump out code quickly, or did they hire him to write code that runs fast?

 

[Gat Pelsinger]

2 hours ago, Dat Guy said:

Statements like this are the exact reason why today’s software is written this way: a text editor eats half a GiB of RAM while idling, two web browser windows force you to close one other application so you won’t run out of resources…

 

I know, “we” (who?) “all” have “unlimited resources” now. That’s not because computers have become any faster - it’s because software has become greedy.

Bro is speaking fax. You have my support.

[wasab]

4 hours ago, ToboRobot said:

It depends.

Do you think Meta hired Carmack to pump out code quickly, or did they hire him to write code that runs fast?

 

Former is more likely if you want me to choose