complains about losing one second
literally has an "sign up for my newsletter!"-overlay that appears in front of the article, while you're reading the article
this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
39 points (95.3% liked)
Programming
16975 readers
1288 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I'll gladly wait one second, or ten, to never see a newsletter overlay again.
And talks about a time before the internet while he looks what? 30-40 in that image?
Yes, things are bloated and slow, it's annoying. But the article didn't add much or go into the reasons why.
People in different socioeconomic situations/locations experience new technology at different points in time. Just because the internet existed doesnt mean they (or anyone in their immediate vicinity) had internet, state of the art computers, etc.
I was going to say "At least I can click 'Continue reading' and it actually goes away immediately" but actually, no. This is still enshittification, I've just gotten used to shittier versions of it.
It's a Substack thing, not added by the author
Sure but if they chose a better publishing platform that time wasting overlay wouldn't be there.
Maybe if the author chose better tools, they wouldn't have to wait around so much? I don't have to wait 1 second for a unit test to run for example - and I don't have particularly fast hardware..
Maybe they didn't have time to see how the platform performed for the reader?
They only waited half a second before signing up
The author chose to host on a platform that does that. So it is their fault
Yeah, there was a bit of discussion about that on Lobsters :)
It's a cathartic, but not particularly productive vent.
Yes, there are stupid lines of time.sleep(1) written in some tests and codebases. But also, there are test setUp() methods which do expensive work per-test, so that the runtime grew too fast with the number of tests. There are situations where there was a smarter algorithm and the original author said "fuck it" and did the N^2 one. There are container-oriented workflows that take a long time to spin up in order to run the same tests. There are stupid DNS resolution timeouts because you didn't realize that the third-party library you used would try to connect to an API which is not reachable in your test environment... And the list goes on...
I feel like it's the "easy way out" to create some boogeyman, the stupid engineer who writes slow, shitty code. I think it's far more likely that these issues come about because a capable person wrote software under one set of assumptions, and then the assumptions changed, and now the code is slow because the assumptions were violated. There's no bad guy here, just people doing their best.
I think it is a bit more than that.
You point out two things:
- the "fuck it" algorithm
- the hidden DNS request.
So, now, obviously if you wrote the "fuck it", then well, you fix it. If you found the DNS library problem - find a better lib or something.
But if you take the stance "fuck it, there's always something", you don't even have a chance of finding out. If you had a test suite running 10 seconds, and suddenly it's up by 10 more, you would notice. If you had tests running for 10 minutes, you would not.
If you had a webapp or something that always opened "fast", then suddenly it gets doubly slower, you'll notice it. But if you already started slow, you won't notice (or care, or both), when it gets even worse.
I think that's the point of the article. If we all dug in and fixed a little bit, eventually we'd have fast apps or tests or whatever. If you accept that things suck, you'll make it tripply worse. It is a conscious effort to be fast.
Should give game dev a try then you will learn how long 16ms is...