moneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoney moneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoney moneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoney moneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoney
Error: undefined reference 'money'
Syntax Error, line 1: ‘moneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoney moneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoney moneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoney moneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoney’ is not defined
"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
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.
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.
Dynamic programming: Heyyy...
Yeah, you have to be pretty deranged to mix multithreading and recursion together.
while (true) { print money; }
Someone’s never heard of Bitcoin
if print-money == false then mine-bitcoin;
Did the person writing this have a stroke?
They certainly do like to use the word "in" a lot.
Optimizing CPU usage by 0.02% is something only the truly deranged do
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.
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(n^2^) 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.
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.
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.
#gentoo
I'm a senior dev and I'll be honest: I'm not sure what I do.
You enchant rocks engraved with runes
Computer programmers are the wizards of the present.
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
That sounds very interesting, do you remember the name or the author?
I take offense to the teapot joke. Leave the teapots out of it.
Tell that to Don Norman.
This is a butchered rip off of an actual joke.
I mean, that's what a meme template is, yes.
It's your claim this was produced with an image macro??
Jokes on you, the Fed has been running that bottom program for years.
The angle between my chin and my lip corner has increased. Thank you.
What scares me, is that this can really not be a joke
Except the teapot. The teapot is highly valuable.
I think I had enough Internet for today.
OK. I guess it's time to go start my rutabaga farm now.
Oh is that kinda like a raspberry or orange pi farm?
Sounds kinda RISCy in this economy...
Yeah, better use something that isn't ARM
(In germany, arm means poor)
What's the teapot a reference to?
It's an in-joke in 3D modeling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_teapot
I was aware of status code 418. The whole thing being a huge April Fools joke is amazing.
But we had to program the computer for it to be able to do math in the first place?
I can't not read this in Ron Swanson's voice.
Why is it that 5 minutes before bed time when I'm really tired do I have the urge to fire up a C tutorial?
All this computer stuff is a complete useless scam for sure.
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
