43
What's the point of lightweight code with modern computers? (liam-on-linux.dreamwidth.org)
submitted 11 months ago by to c/programming@programming.dev
28 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -13 points 11 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

Good luck watching a video on 56k

Edit: I remember the dialup days and trying to watch a 10 second video on ebaum's world. I used to have AOL back when dinosaurs roamed the earth.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 11 months ago*

    Seems someone said it before me... But you missed the point.

    I'll respond to your statement generally though.

    Basic survival on 56k was doable. Shoutcast or Pandora could even be streamed with occasional buffering while browsing more light, or less heavy, sites. On the topic of video - low quality 240 would be "manageable" again, thanks to modern compression.

    Was it a good experience? Rarely. Was it passible? Certainly; and if a site optimised for load time and reduced bandwidth - it could even be near broadband "experience" with some caching tricks.

    Im not saying everyone needs to be code gods and build a 96k fps... But optimizing comes from understanding what you are writing and how it works. All this bloat is the result of laziness and a looser grasp on the fundamentals. As to why we should take a harder look at optimization?

    • Datacenter / cloud costs are rising... Smaller footprint - smaller bill.

    • Worldwide hardware costs are rising... Less people will be building fire breathing monsters. Better optimization - better user experience - more users. Recent examples (of poor optimization:) fallout and early 2077.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    That's not what he is saying.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    I mean, the text on a website isn't the problem for not being able to use 56k.

    It's only images and video that take up space, the libraries used on websites are all cached at this point so that's hardly relevant to ongoing usage of a website.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago

    You're underestimating the text part a lot. The sheer amount of things downloaded for most sites is insane. It's not the raw data (although it's still pretty significant, especially when things haven't been cached yet.

    But there's often HUNDREDS of pages loaded. Each which needs a GET, even to validate cache, which often fails. Some can be done in parallel. All requires a bunch of shitty slow HTML/CSS/JS compute. It's stupid. It's why loading a page on a 16-core system with gigabit internet links still takes like 5+ seconds to load instead of the like 200ms that it should. Which adds up.

    Now do that over 56k.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent