|
In that case I wasn't as interested in the source code as I was in the final code. I was looking for optimization opportunities, and I was looking at the IL as well and comparing it to mine.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
I missed the bottom line of your post. I'll respond here.
Well, this 10% is for a library, so it kind of changes the calculus of it somewhat. The 10% has a multiplier effect based on how popular the library gets, if that makes sense.
I don't think the 10% would make the code that much more confusing unless it also forces me to do something to it I am unwilling to anyway. I am not looking for a total remodel at this stage given the stability and performance numbers I have.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
Having written .Net enumerators, yes, it can be slow. It can also be a very powerful abstraction when used properly. Linq on the other hand, is a nightmare to write in VB. C# supports the Lambda syntax while VB doesn't. Personally, most Linq uses can easily be rewritten as a for loop which is easier to read and understand. Some require a function call, but then so do all Linq statements.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, and it's not like there aren't developers that that have sweated over how to make that particular segment of code as fast as they can. There is a crap ton of flexibility built into IEnumerable that would be difficult to optimize away.
I worked on a project years back where that level of optimization made a big difference, and I still used the convenience of LINQ group by, distinct, orderby, etc. to build up hashtables that I used in the optimized sections of code I wrote. Using LINQ helped in the part it was good at.
|
|
|
|
|
From CP newsletter.
the rust project has a burnout problem[^]
The author is lamenting that some developers on Rust are suffering from burnout. And then describing an environment where new contributors either have no mentor or the mentor leaves.
When I read that I think so what?
Seems like a description of almost everything. Certainly every company I have worked for. Only time that didn't happened was when the company went bankrupt before those working there got tired.
When I look for new libraries I look for robust user communities because I have used libraries before where there were few or even one developer. Props for the continued support but for long term use even popular libraries have suffered from reduced support.
I have even seen that at night clubs and restaurants. First two years after they open you can't get in the door. 2 years later they have shut the door. (Actually I think I know of a promoter/company that specifically relies on that model.)
|
|
|
|
|
Bad naming. Just the other day, I broke through a mental fog by renaming some modules, methods, etc. to better reflect what they were doing. I'm now wheeling and rotating and charging and following when before I was just "moving".
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
What probably doesn't help is that among developers, especially young developers, there is a certain mindset.
Burning midnight oil, working stupid hours, often unpaid, is considered some sort of flex.
I see this in corporate environments as well: the people most likely to burn out are those who do not set boundaries and want to solve everything / feel responsible for everything. The people most likely to last are the ones who like their job but at the end of their shift say: the rest can wait till tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
|
There's yet another article on Slashdot claiming Bing's market share has barely budged despite ChatGPT being added to it, and initially being a big hit, yada-yada.
And yet barely 2 days prior, another article read, "Google Search Really Has Gotten Worse, Researchers Find". I've been seeing those sorts of articles time and again over the last few months. I can't say whether that's true. I try to do as little as possible with Google nowadays.
I've actually been doing my searches through Bing for a few years now, using Edge (since it moved to the Chromium engine), and frankly, it's a rare occurrence where I can't find what I'm looking for within the first few results of a query. Generally if I can't find anything on Bing, Google really doesn't fare quantifiably "better".
And MS already has all the information it wants from me, if not through my search queries and browser telemetry, then through telemetry sent by the OS itself. If Google's search results truly are getting worse (not my claim), I'm not sure why they should still be in my life. Frankly if my data's gonna get collected anyway, I'd rather have one company have it then two. Especially when one of them is purely an advertising company (whereas the other is merely trying to move in that direction, despite failing repeatedly - and the company's very survival doesn't rely on its ad department).
Nobody it seems ever misses a chance to ridicule Edge or Bing. Laugh all you want, I'm actually rather happy with how it's working out for me.
Obviously, YMMV. So what say you? Are Google's results getting as unusable as some claim? If so, why stick with it?
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm, the Quote button doesn't seem to be working. Aanywaayy...
Are Google's results getting as unusable as some claim?
I have no idea; I've never used it.
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm, the Quote button doesn't seem to be working.
I've noticed that...the button is there, clicking on it doesn't do anything except for removing the highlight. So, I've been manually copying and pasting, and then adding a ">" before the pasted line.
The hamsters must be acting up.
|
|
|
|
|
Are Google's results getting as unusable as some claim?
Yes. Very much yes when you are looking for specific information, or trying to recall an article you read a while ago. Their verbatim search used to be the bees knees, or however the saying goes. Even it sucks now. And has for about at least a year.
|
|
|
|
|
If you've never used it why comment? Or is this some new nerd virtue signal?
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a creature of habit. I've been using Google search so long, I forget Bing is there. I'm a Firefox guy for my browser. I find what I'm looking for so I'm not worried. Maybe if you're searching eccentric stuff it matters. But for boring stuff like "Where to buy a 16" husky chainsaw" Google does just fine for me.
Hogan
|
|
|
|
|
I use Vivaldi as my main browser, and Firefox for some other stuff (its Facebook container is its main selling point to me). Yesterday I checked the memory footprint between them. Vivaldi - 106 tabs, 5.5 GB. Firefox: 10 tabs, 4 GB. This is in line with every time I've checked memory usage in the past. For some reason FF just sucks it up a lot more. Maybe the extension are heavy, although I only have three.
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting. I'm 6 tabs deep in FF with only 1.5Gb of memory used. Opened up Facebook and it brought me to 2Gb. So not too big of a deal to me. Maybe I just do boring stuff with my machine.
Hogan
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know. It has been an issue every time I've looked at Firefox, seemingly into the distant past.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm using Chrome. I have six windows open, with a total of about 150 tabs open. Current memory usage is at 572 MB. YMMV
|
|
|
|
|
That is great memory usage. To me, its crazy to have 150 tabs open. I could never work that way. I open and close tabs often. Its my goal to know what is on every tab when using my computer or close them. When I'm researching something, I might go crazy and have 30 tabs open, but I work quickly to either decide the information is useful, or close it.
Hogan
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with that.
Besides keeping it straight in the head, what does 150 tabs even look like in the UI?
I should note I don't use tabs at all. I open a new instance for each.
|
|
|
|
|
I have six windows open for different categories (personal, work, training, etc.) and within each, I use tab groups quite a bit. Most of the open pages are work-related and is the kind of stuff that I might need later today or two weeks from now, but hunting the pages down would be a big pain in the butt (our internal file-sharing and job tracking systems are a bit of a mess...but getting better). I suppose I could switch to creating lots of bookmarks instead, but since Chrome got their act together on memory management, it doesn't seem to be a real issue for me.
|
|
|
|
|
In case you want to look into it Windows allows for multiple desktops. Key press to switch between. So for example personal could be on one and work on another.
|
|
|
|
|
Many Chromium-based browser does that - it is called suspended page. When I go back to it, it loads again. It is a bit annoying, except when you play music from one of those pages - till it gets suspended.
I use a 32 bit W7 box, there is no HTML 5 browser running all pages living other than the good old trusty IE 11. It is funny when you have a MS product to showcase as a memory-conscious application.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe if you're searching eccentric stuff it matters. But for boring stuff like "Where to buy a 16" husky chainsaw" Google does just fine for me
Most of my searches is for formal API documentation (where IntelliSense isn't enough and I need more details).
The rest is rather generic. But it's been established I'm not the typical "consumer" whose only use for search engines is to buy crap. Had a long thread about this a few months back.
|
|
|
|
|
I think Bing is and was always the better choice to search the MS docs.
|
|
|
|
|
...and it probably still is the better choice, when compared to using the docs page's own search...
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
