Re:Atom's new concurrency-friendly buffer implementation
by majidazimi on Friday October 13, 2017 @05:44AM
(#15464259)
Developers want the best quality from other industries, while in the mean time they suggest "Worse is better" for software industry. How about using the same strategy for air crafts, ships, cars, trains, medical devices? Some authority really needs to regulate software industry so every software company builds a high quality, energy efficient, crazy fast software. Aerospace people were successful to land human on moon on 1969. It is late 2017 and software industry is struggling to reduce the memory usage of a text editor to under 1GB. Retarded.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Atom's new concurrency-friendly buffer implementation
by seattle_spring on Friday October 13, 2017 @06:02AM
(#15464319)
Give me $150B, the inflation-adjusted cost of the Apollo space program, and I'll put together a team and build the perfect text editor that uses "less than 1GB of memory."
Also...
> Retarded
Come on. Let's have an adult conversation here.
Re:Atom's new concurrency-friendly buffer implementation
by ninegunpi on Friday October 13, 2017 @08:26AM
(#15464981)
Sorry, but I think you've completely missed the point of this essay.
Think for a second: why can't you produce a better working text editor that people actually use, if all current ones are produced on inefficient technologies by subpar engineers with impaired judgment that led them to current choice of techniques? What are the real barriers to do that?