• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    531 month ago

    moneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoney moneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoney moneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoney moneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoney

    • @pivot_root
      link
      211 month ago

      Error: undefined reference ‘money’

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      118 days ago

      Syntax Error, line 1: ‘moneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoney moneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoney moneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoney moneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoney’ is not defined

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    501 month ago

    “I’m writing a recursive method with threads to optimize the CPU usage in a 0.02%” THIS IS A NONSENSICAL STATEMENT MADE BY DERANGED PEOPLE

    I mean this is correct though

    • @stingpie
      link
      131 month ago

      Recursion makes it cheaper to run in the dev’s mind, but more expensive to run on the computer. Subroutines are always slower than a simple jump.

      • @pivot_root
        link
        61 month ago

        Recursion makes it cheaper to run in the dev’s mind, but more expensive to run on the computer.

        Maybe for a Haskell programmer, divide-and-conquer algorithms, or walking trees. But for everything else, I’m skeptical of it being easier to understand than a stack data structure and a loop.

    • @pivot_root
      link
      71 month ago

      Yeah, you have to be pretty deranged to mix multithreading and recursion together.

    • Sibbo
      link
      fedilink
      91 month ago

      They certainly do like to use the word “in” a lot.

    • @pivot_root
      link
      111 month ago

      Not necessarily. It depends on what you’re optimizing, the impact of the optimizations, the code complexity tradeoffs, and what your goal is.

      Optimizing many tiny pieces of a compiler by 0.02% each? It adds up.

      Optimizing a function called in an O(n2) algorithm by 0.02%? That will be a lot more beneficial than optimizing a function called only once.

      Optimizing some high-level function by dropping into hand-written assembly? No. Just no.

      • magic_lobster_party
        link
        fedilink
        41 month ago

        0.02% means you’re saving a fraction of a second for every hour of runtime. A lot of adding up is required to make it significant enough for anyone to notice.

        Better to spend that time and effort on things that actually bring value. These kind of micro optimizations can also make the code unnecessarily complicated and difficult to work with, which is a hindrance for the optimizations that truly matter.

        • @pivot_root
          link
          4
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          In a single one-off program or something that’s already fast enough to not take more than a few seconds—yeah, the time is spent better elsewhere.

          I did mention for a compiler, specifically, though. They’re CPU bottlenecked with a huge number of people or CI build agents waiting for it to run, which makes it a good candidate for squeezing extra performance out in places where it doesn’t impact maintainability. 0.02% here, 0.15% there, etc etc, and even a 1% total improvement is still a couple extra seconds of not sitting around and waiting per Jenkins build.

          Also keep in mind that adding features or making large changes to a compiler is likely bottlenecked by bureaucracy and committee, so there’s not much else to do.

    • swab148
      link
      fedilink
      111 month ago

      I saw an article last week about a one-liner they were adding to the Linux kernel that would reduce the startup time by .03 seconds, and let me tell you, I was relieved.

  • @AdamEatsAss
    link
    131 month ago

    I’m a senior dev and I’ll be honest: I’m not sure what I do.

    • @SpaceNoodle
      link
      251 month ago

      You enchant rocks engraved with runes

        • Dave.
          link
          fedilink
          4
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          There was a series of books in the '80s where a systems programmer gets pulled through a portal into your typical magical world, good vs evil, etc.

          They subsequently look at the magical spells in use and realise they can apply Good Systems Programming Practices™ to them. And thus, with their knowledge of subroutines and parallel processing, they amplify their tiny innate magical abilities up to become a Pretty Good Magician™. So while all the rest of the magicians basically have to construct their spells to execute in a linear fashion, they’re making magical subroutines and utility functions and spawning recursive spells without halting checks and generally causing havoc.

          It’s quite a good allegory for modern times, where a select few build all the magic and the rest just have useful artefacts they use on a day to day basis with no idea how they work

          • Makr Alland
            link
            41 month ago

            That sounds very interesting, do you remember the name or the author?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -131 month ago
        1. this isn’t an image macro / meme template

        2. this isn’t how the humor of a meme template works. This is the same joke, worse. This is just stealing a joke.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          12
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          There’s literally a community somewhere here centered around versions of this template. I’ve personally seen version posted a few other places on Lemmy, too.

          I’ll let others be the judge of if you can steal a joke on the internet, or if they’re some kind of collective property. Maybe it’s worse now but TBH I didn’t get it the first time.

  • @ericbomb
    link
    71 month ago

    Jokes on you, the Fed has been running that bottom program for years.

  • N3Cr0
    link
    61 month ago

    I think I had enough Internet for today.

  • @AlbinoPython
    link
    31 month ago

    I can’t not read this in Ron Swanson’s voice.

  • funbreaker
    link
    fedilink
    English
    329 days ago

    But we had to program the computer for it to be able to do math in the first place?