groctel@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 15 hours agoreason enough to fail the interviewlemmy.worldimagemessage-square69linkfedilinkarrow-up1564arrow-down16
arrow-up1558arrow-down1imagereason enough to fail the interviewlemmy.worldgroctel@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 15 hours agomessage-square69linkfedilink
minus-squarehperrin@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5arrow-down1·13 hours agoThis wholly depends on where this code is running. If it’s running on the server, you want the best algorithm for most cases, to try to minimize work and power consumption, and maximize capacity. If it’s running on the client, just use whatever.
minus-squarexthexder@l.sw0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up10·11 hours ago If it’s running on the client, just use whatever. Because who cares if it’s the user that has to buy more RAM or gets terrible battery life, that’s not our problem. /s This is why we can’t have nice things.
minus-squarehperrin@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·6 hours agoI agree. I guess it wasn’t obvious that I was being sarcastic.
minus-squareClusterfck@lemmy.sdf.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up17·12 hours agoTHIS IS WHY SOFTWARE DOWNLOADS ARE 75 GB WHEN 20 YEARS AGO THEY WERE ONLY 200 MB.
This wholly depends on where this code is running. If it’s running on the server, you want the best algorithm for most cases, to try to minimize work and power consumption, and maximize capacity. If it’s running on the client, just use whatever.
Because who cares if it’s the user that has to buy more RAM or gets terrible battery life, that’s not our problem. /s
This is why we can’t have nice things.
I agree. I guess it wasn’t obvious that I was being sarcastic.
THIS IS WHY SOFTWARE DOWNLOADS ARE 75 GB WHEN 20 YEARS AGO THEY WERE ONLY 200 MB.