On 2018-07-11, The Natural Philosopher  wrote:

> On 11/07/18 20:10, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2018-07-11, Ron Aaron  wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/07/2018 19:48, Alex McDonald wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11-Jul-18 16:51, Ron Aaron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/07/2018 18:01, Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/07/2018 14:01, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, performance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not really an issue, for, if you're chasing execution time on
>>>>>> a 1GHz processor, then get yourself a 2GHz processor.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow. Really?
>>>>>
>>>>> And what do you do when you run out of GHz to pursue?  Tell your clients
>>>>> to get multiple boxes?
>>
>> That's parallelism, innit?
>>
>>>> We're nearly at the GHz limit for processors; I don't know the exact
>>>> figures, but anything beyond 5GHz seems to be it. Certainly the power
>>>> consumption & heat dissapation is a big problem. Intel are shipping
>>>> multi core monsters, not faster single cores.
>>>
>>> Exactly my point.  CPU speeds haven't increased appreciably for a number
>>> of years.
>>
>> So now software bloat has nowhere to hide...
>
> Indeed.
>
> Probably get a new generation of compilers that analyse bloatware and
> completely rewrite it to work as intended, rather than as written...

Perhaps if it posted snide remarks about the programmer to a public forum
every time it did this, we could shame people into writing decent code again.

--
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  Fight low-contrast text in web pages!  http://contrastrebellion.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05