groctel@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 3 days agoreason enough to fail the interviewlemmy.worldimagemessage-square139linkfedilinkarrow-up11
arrow-up11imagereason enough to fail the interviewlemmy.worldgroctel@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 3 days agomessage-square139linkfedilink
minus-squarehperrin@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·3 days 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-up0·3 days 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-up0·3 days agoI agree. I guess it wasn’t obvious that I was being sarcastic.
minus-squareClusterfck@lemmy.sdf.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up0·3 days 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.