16 Aug 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritThe resources have moved due to shifting economies. Processing power and megabytes are now cheaper than programmer time. Whenever you have a program that you need to make faster, there is always two choices: make it more efficient, or throw hardware at it.
those early computers had some really efficient programming, they had to have it due to very limited resources. not like today's behemoths where any script-kiddie can program spaghetti code and let the computers awesome processing power sort it out.
it's why today, it takes dozens of megabytes to to the same thing that yesterday's computers could do with 500 kilobytes.
There is also the related equation of where programmer time is best spent. Rather than spend many hours making your programs faster and smaller, you may choose to add more features or get rid of bugs.
Keep in mind also the enormous advantages of allowing script-kiddies to do some of the programming rather than having to hire experts.
16 Aug 12
Originally posted by RJHindsPlease tell me which (and how) programming languages "do all the hard programming for you" as you say?
Back in the old days the programmers really had to know what they were doing to make an efficent program. Today with all the memory and programming languages that do all the hard programming for you, it is a lot easier to program a computer.
16 Aug 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadsure, you do save from an economic perspective, but you end up annoying users with large, inefficient resource hog programs that they can't do without, like the adobe lineup.
The resources have moved due to shifting economies. Processing power and megabytes are now cheaper than programmer time. Whenever you have a program that you need to make faster, there is always two choices: make it more efficient, or throw hardware at it.
There is also the related equation of where programmer time is best spent. Rather than spend many h ...[text shortened]... ges of allowing script-kiddies to do some of the programming rather than having to hire experts.
and this philosophy has also infected operating systems. there was a time you could fit a fully functional graphical gui based operating system on one floppy disk. now it takes half a gigabyte of memory just to be able to load the thing... and it's getting bigger each new version.
16 Aug 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritI was going to rant about the joys of bad code but...
sure, you do save from an economic perspective, but you end up annoying users with large, inefficient resource hog programs that they can't do without, like the adobe lineup.
and this philosophy has also infected operating systems. there was a time you could fit a fully functional graphical gui based operating system on one floppy disk. now it takes ...[text shortened]... abyte of memory just to be able to load the thing... and it's getting bigger each new version.
As for floppy disk sized operating systems there is still Damn Small Linux (several floppies now I think though)!
16 Aug 12
1 edit
Originally posted by VoidSpiritThere is nothing stopping you from using the old gui that you love so much. In fact, I think you may find that a command line based operating system is even smaller and more efficient.
sure, you do save from an economic perspective, but you end up annoying users with large, inefficient resource hog programs that they can't do without, like the adobe lineup.
and this philosophy has also infected operating systems. there was a time you could fit a fully functional graphical gui based operating system on one floppy disk. now it takes ...[text shortened]... abyte of memory just to be able to load the thing... and it's getting bigger each new version.
[edit]Actually you might have trouble finding a floppy drive, and the computer bios might not be backward compatible. My current computer can't even boot Windows 2000.
Do not confuse bad inefficient code with extra features. Unless you can say for sure which is using up the memory and resources, then you may be blaming the wrong thing. As for doing without, I think you will find that there are alternatives to almost every major software package or OS. I do realise that you may be constrained by your employer or who you work with etc, but remember too that they must have chosen the bloated software you hate so much over some other more efficient program that might not have had the features they wanted (or maybe cost more?).
16 Aug 12
Originally posted by AgergI was thinking of computer languages such as Java, Visual Basic, Delphi, and applications like OpenGL that make programming of Graphics easier. However, it depends on the goal of the programmer as to what is better.
Please tell me which (and how) programming languages "do all the hard programming for you" as you say?
16 Aug 12
Originally posted by kbear1kIt seems to be human nature to disagree. So if there seems to be disagreements among scholars, do not despire, but use reason and logic to determine what is most likely correct. 😏
"I also look at what Biblical scholars have written about it."
Biblical scholars often disagree on certain passages. How do you determine which one to accept?
BTW - most of the origional texts have been lost. The best we have are copies of the texts.
16 Aug 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadThey don't make computers with floppy drives anymore unless they are specially ordered. Floppy drives are really obsolete because they hold very little data "in the grand scheme of things." 😏
There is nothing stopping you from using the old gui that you love so much. In fact, I think you may find that a command line based operating system is even smaller and more efficient.
[edit]Actually you might have trouble finding a floppy drive, and the computer bios might not be backward compatible. My current computer can't even boot Windows 2000.
...[text shortened]... more efficient program that might not have had the features they wanted (or maybe cost more?).
16 Aug 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritYeah, but try running video conferencing on an OS that fits on a floppy. 😛
sure, you do save from an economic perspective, but you end up annoying users with large, inefficient resource hog programs that they can't do without, like the adobe lineup.
and this philosophy has also infected operating systems. there was a time you could fit a fully functional graphical gui based operating system on one floppy disk. now it takes ...[text shortened]... abyte of memory just to be able to load the thing... and it's getting bigger each new version.
16 Aug 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadnope, it's simply a matter of economics. i don't have the time to specially code everything that i will use nor the resources to commission programmers to write efficient programs for me and the generic programs written by others constantly require more and more resources to do the same things.
There is nothing stopping you from using the old gui that you love so much. In fact, I think you may find that a command line based operating system is even smaller and more efficient.
[edit]Actually you might have trouble finding a floppy drive, and the computer bios might not be backward compatible. My current computer can't even boot Windows 2000.
...[text shortened]... more efficient program that might not have had the features they wanted (or maybe cost more?).
16 Aug 12
Originally posted by Agerglinux is just awful. i can't stress enough how awful linux really is. i'd have to make up new words to express just how awful linux is. it's conflagerghastingly awful.
I was going to rant about the joys of bad code but...
As for floppy disk sized operating systems there is still Damn Small Linux (several floppies now I think though)!
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
16 Aug 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritwhich of the computer languages if you advise people to learn if you were forced to choose?
linux is just awful. i can't stress enough how awful linux really is. i'd have to make up new words to express just how awful linux is. it's conflagerghastingly awful.
16 Aug 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritFair enough...what in your opinion makes it so awful if you don't mind me asking? not trying to sound like a linux fanboi but (using Ubuntu) I can't remember the amount of times I've discovered things I can do in the shell that make me think "wow...that's pretty damned cool!"
linux is just awful. i can't stress enough how awful linux really is. i'd have to make up new words to express just how awful linux is. it's conflagerghastingly awful.