6
hitko
56d

What's with so many developers using shitty hardware? It's literary the one tool you need for your profession, there should be absolutely no objection to having the best one available. Stop bitching about some software using 50% of your CPU when you're on the bare entry-level HW ffs! And don't give me that "can't afford it" bullshit. If you take your car to the repair shop, you're also paying for the tools needed for the job; the same way, your customers need to pay for the tools you need as a developer. If you can't afford that, there's clearly not enough demand for the work you do, so go find a different job.

Comments
  • 0
    Doesn't you use the hardware your enployer gives you?
  • 3
    * what if you actually don't have enough money?
    * what if you can access work through one specific machine, that you got for work?
    * what if you live in a country, where pcs have an unreasonable price, that makes it inpossible for you to even think about that?
    * what if you have multiple machines, and you cant afford to run them all at a high end?

    Your rant ignores a lot of legitimate cases.
  • 2
    Dude it's the developer responsability to be memory-efficient not cut costs and screw people up by forcing them to buy new hardware because your "app" is a bloated piece of shit

    Look at microsoft
  • 3
    "Stop bitching about some software using 50% of your CPU"

    Modern day CPU are uber fast compared to what was happening in the past and the tasks haven't change so explain me why Teams needs half of my RAM and CPU usage to do what MSN messenger could do with 10x less memory 20 years ago.
  • 4
    @ostream I agree with what you said.

    I really don't understand why it has to be like that. Perhaps just the attitude of "the hardware is fast enough so I won't need to worry about efficiency" kind of thing.

    I find it very pleasing to have a machine be as efficient as it possibly can be and take personal pride in writing quality software that is fast as much as I can.

    Personally, I have a old iMac that Apple decided was too old to run the latest OSX so I installed Arch Linux on it and it never seems to run slowly and works all the time 😁
  • 0
    @thebiochemic If PCs cost a lot, then your prices should reflect that. If people expect you to do cheap work using expensive tools, tell them to fuck off, then go find work where you'll be able to pay for the tools you need. The same applies if your employer doesn't give you what you need.

    I get that you probably can't afford a proper dev machine straight away, but you should at least charge enough to get one within a year, and if people aren't willing to pay, see previous paragraph.
  • 0
    @ostream Lol right. Those on low-spec hardware sure as hell aren't paying extra for the developers to spend more time making the software "efficient", and those who could afford to pay extra wouldn't even notice such an improved "efficiency". That's the reality of it, if you don't like it you're free to make something else or find a place where you don't need to use the software you don't like.
  • 2
    @thebiochemic If you really can't have beefy hardware as a dev, you sadly have to accept, that you have to live without or with laggy continuous static code analysis and other features. Also you then have to be more disciplined about what and how many tabs you keep open in your browser - as when the machine starts swapping, there can only be suffering and despair...

    As a matter of fact, a lot of the features we devs love about our IDEs just can't be done without throwing plenty of RAM and CPU cycles on the problem. And the web is still bloated for completely different reasons even after filtering through uBlock Origin (which is a must regardless of your system's beefyness).

    No matter your use case - get a beefy machine or you will suffer.

    P.S.: No, this is not an excuse for Microsoft's Azure Storage Emulator being the slowest piece of crap on earth.
  • 0
    @hitko that's.. not how the market works...
  • 0
    @Oktokolo i know, and i agree with that. But if youre realistic about that, there are certain regions in the world, where you actually have to be on a low end.

    Im not saying i'm complaining about that stuff. But i'm also on the side that software nowadays is way too inefficient.
  • 0
    @hitko "Those on low-spec hardware sure as hell aren't paying extra for the developers to spend more time making the software "efficient""

    We pay the same thing -_-. if you're ok to get fucked by microsoft and wear all your expensive hardware because those fucks are rounding the corners be my guest
  • 0
    @thebiochemic Low end is relative. You absolutely can have fun without continously running static code analysis, code assist and realtime change tracking. But if the machine starts lagging due to syntax highlighting and incremental compilation takes minutes, you definitely have gone too low.

    The second hand market exists and an i5 with iGPU from ten years ago with 16GiB of RAM (shouldn't really go lower as a dev) and any reasonably sized SSD should still do the job when on a budget. Get a desktop - they generally have better specs for same age and marketed performance tier while also being cheaper.
  • 0
    @thebiochemic That's exactly how the market works. It's up to you to set the right price, to inform the customers what they're paying for, and to budget in everything you need to continue doing your job, or you'll go under. If you try to be the cheapest choice, the only customers you'll ever get will be cheapskates, and you'll never be able to afford anything better.
  • 0
    @ostream Paying the same licence price doesn't mean shit. You're nothing compared to a company paying for premium support on 50,000+ licences, and that company cares much more about getting blocking bugs fixed and new features added than about memory efficiency.
  • 0
    @ostream telemetry of all mouse and keyboard actions + filemon, regmon etc. and sending it home. So better gzip that cause it is your cpu time anyway xD
Add Comment