On 07/08/2014 01:45 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Gilbert Sebenste
> <sebenste@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Jul 2014, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>>
>>> and did the conversion for display to save another byte. Efficiency?
>>> We were desperate for every byte we could squeeze out. the US Post
>>> Office created a standard so that all US cities (and supposedly streets)
>>> could be entered in 14 characters or less.
thinking back, I think it was 14 characters for cities and 25 for
streets. But this IS going back 40 years. I still have some of the 9"
tapes, but no tape drive...
>>> We changed the abbreviation
>>> of Nebraska from NB to NE (I remember writing that conversion program)
>>> so we could more easily mix US and Canada addresses (those they would
>>> not change their 6 character code to our 5 digit one). We burned CPU to
>>> save storage. then rewrote key routines in assembler and hacked the
>>> COBOL calls to make it all work.
>>>
>>> Things change. Design goals change. Systems have to change.
>> Of course they do. And those were changes in efficiency that were the
>> result of needed productivity improvements. Change for the sake of
>> major improvement(s). Wonderful, well-designed, efficient AND necessary.
>> And it obviously made things more productive for everyone!
>>
>> I argue that systemd neither improves efficiency, productivity or
>> satisfaction...nor is it necessary.
> More to the point, those 'old' efficiency hacks were from a time when
> programmer time was cheaper than the computer resources. Now, the
> computers should be doing the work for us instead of the other way
> around. Can anyone really make the argument that we can't afford the
> computer resources for transparent backwards compatibility now?
>
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
