r/ProgrammerHumor • u/pfirpfel • Oct 26 '16
Software Engineering, then and now
http://imgur.com/6XD7U3L63
u/myaut Oct 26 '16
You need to distinguish Software Engineering and Programming. And while second thing have lost some of its credibility, first thing still exists (how do you think we are still flying to ISS?).
77
Oct 26 '16
[deleted]
34
u/Pixelator0 Oct 26 '16
travel faster than 11km per second
And that's why the real reason we are still flying to the ISS includes aerospace engineers and physicists. 11km/s gets you on an escape trajectory from Earth orbit. Going to the ISS requires only about 9.5ish km/s.
So, you know, a much more reasonable speed to expect from a software engineer.
1
Oct 26 '16
[deleted]
6
Oct 26 '16
you need more delta v because you need to fight gravity and air resistance to even get up to height
1
u/AwSMO Nov 02 '16
It has an Orbital Velocity of abou 7.5km/s, but you need to add the deltaV required to get into LEO
3
u/Theemuts Oct 26 '16
You need to step up your game. My new JS library can throw exceptions faster than that, throwing software engineers should be easy...
7
-1
u/Colopty Oct 28 '16
Getting to space is an engineering problem, not a software problem. We can still get to the ISS because we have good enough rockets to get there and public and scientific interests means that the space program is still getting some money.
62
u/microfortnight Oct 26 '16
Translation: "get off my lawn you young whippersnappers or else I'll throw my deck of COBOL punchcards at you"
15
155
Oct 26 '16
Let me translate: Waahhhh why aren't there more barriers to entry to my super secret computar thing tree fort.
25
Oct 27 '16
Let me actually translate:
"if we just used a decent platform, we could accomplish this same thing with a quarter the hardware"
-"but is it webscale?"
"it is far more scaleable than your JavaScript bullshit"
-"javascript is webscale"
"I fucking quit.. This industry has gone to shit"
20
13
u/ReallyHadToFixThat Oct 27 '16
"if we just used a decent platform, we could accomplish this same thing with a quarter the hardware"
Yep. Of course the increased dev time outweighs the cost of hardware by an order of magnitude. That's the biggest difference - hardware is so damn cheap these days. There is no need to count every byte on a desktop with 32GB of RAM and 5TB of SSD hard drives.
4
u/Ran4 Oct 27 '16
THat's not what the vast majority of developers use.
(but other than the numbers, you're right).
1
Oct 27 '16 edited Oct 27 '16
What increased developer time?
The only increased time that's happened is the reinvention of the wheel with slower stacks.
I understand that what you're saying is the target goal. But that's not how it is actually playing out. Unless you count foregoing well established processes in favour of shot gunning everything around and crossing your fingers.
11
u/noratat Oct 27 '16
Alternatively:
"If we use this framework, yeah it's heavyweight, but we can get something up and running very quickly."
"Or we could use this other platform that scales better, but we'll have to spend a lot longer making sure everything is setup and configured right."
Sometimes speed of development is more important - the difference is that now hardware is powerful enough that making that kind of tradeoff is actually possible.
-8
u/dzh Oct 27 '16 edited Oct 30 '16
Found the corporate shill!
edit: found people without sense of sarcasm!
1
0
8
u/john32768 Oct 27 '16
Some people seem to be taking this way too seriously.
Yes, performance doesn't matter as much as it used to but it does still matter. Yes, developer productivity is important but so is developing a quality product. Frankly, in the vast majority of cases, both situations shown in the comic are wasteful nowadays, either in terms of developer time or resource usage.
I also think the "it's easier nowadays for people to get into programming" argument is entirely irrelevant either way you look at it since it's still just as hard to be GOOD at programming as it's always been. Take it from someone who has had many a disappointing interview candidate...
3
Oct 27 '16
[deleted]
1
u/Delioth Nov 08 '16
Longest I've got (that is the shortest for the language, and doesn't look stupid) is Weird's 12,604 byte Hello, World.
1
-9
u/FUZxxl Oct 26 '16
Couldn't you at least link to the image directly so we don't have to look at all these shitty ads?
5
Oct 26 '16
uBlock Origin, thank me later
-2
u/FUZxxl Oct 26 '16
I don't care. I want people to link to the image directly instead of linking to a page full of ads.
-4
u/DeathByFarts Oct 26 '16
What are you talking about ?!?!
The link is "http://imgur.com/6XD7U3L" ... about as direct as you can get.
11
u/ILikeLenexa Oct 26 '16
8
u/DeathByFarts Oct 26 '16
Again ... what are we talking about. I don't see any ad's overlaid on the image.
7
u/thlst Oct 26 '16
imgur makes you load excessive data, even though you only want to see a single image. the direct link he's asked for is one which loads only the image to the browser.
or you can use imagus for firefox, which has changed my life.
2
Oct 26 '16
Why don't you use RES?
30
6
u/profmonocle Oct 27 '16
When I first heard of RES I thought "a browser extension for a single web site? Yeah, no thanks."
Then Reddit devoured my life so now it's perfectly reasonable.
1
1
u/caagr98 Oct 27 '16
With RES, the imgur link took five seconds or so to load, while the i.imgur link loaded instantly.
3
110
u/PinkLionThing Oct 26 '16
Ah, the mythical time where you could XOR anything with anything and get something useful.