Post by @rq4c@mastodon.world

2026-07-01 13:12 UTC

@adzetko@rivals.space @0x7700e6@mastodon.catgirl.cloud @fargate@tech.lgbt Same algorithm in different languages does not compile to same binary. Back in the day, systems programming was done in C: lean, fast, efficient. World's first bank trading system occupied 256k RAM: 128 for the OS, 128 for the application. Try doing that in C++ or any other OO language. The world is burning: we need to go back to lean and efficient. You're right, I shouldn't have laughed, I should have cried. But, it's only a config interpreter in a world of AI…

Replies (1)

@adzetko@rivals.space 2026-07-01 13:32

@0x7700e6@mastodon.catgirl.cloud @fargate@tech.lgbt @rq4c@mastodon.world Uh, okay, I've wrote some C++ and Rust for embarked microcontrollers with less than 2mb of RAM, and I could bet it would a pretty similar developer experience using C or Basic. Well of course the binaries wouldn't be the same, but it really goes down to compilers optimisations, code mess and codebase size. Nowadays, we write memory-hogging programs because we have the luxury of having an ample quantity to work with. Plus we have more security concerns nowadays than back in the days (and damn securing your executables is by definition a resource-intensive process). I totally agree we should try to do much more optimised software, I personally think it's a necessity for practically undoing this idea of infinite growth, but I don't see why C would be better than other languages at that. I really don't get how OOP would inherently mean less optimised outputs.

Open ##4764357