Hacker News Reader

Comment by bogwog | Hacker News Reader

I realize this comment is probably tongue-in-cheek, but if we take it at face value, I think it’s failing to consider that the software’s enery usage is unbounded. An app, for example, may end up installed on millions of devices, or running 24/7 on a server for years.

View on HN

I realize this comment is probably tongue-in-cheek, but if we take it at face value, I think it’s failing to consider that the logical conclusion of this argument is to write programs directly in binary.

Every application should be solar CMOS ASIC only deployed in land thats reclaimed from farming, or else you are just a boomer who destroyed my life and our planet.

Nopetynope, subroutine threaded FORTH is the only hope.

I realize this comment is probably tongue-in-cheek, but if we take it at face value and hold a Unix shell up to the ear, would we hear the C?

I realize this comment is probably tongue-in-cheek, but if we take it at face value, I think it’s failing to consider that the logical conclusion of this argument is to not write programs in the first place.

and this means, any mistake in the software is also replicated to those devices. let's say e.g. buffer overflows... and then efficiency is faster gone than achieved.

Trying, and failing, to resist the urge to bring up Zig

You succeeded, right up till the last 3 characters.

do you mean https://ziglang.org ? as a non C developer I was not aware of that. Thanks

I realize this discussion is probably tongue-in-cheek, but if we take it at face value, I think it's failing to recognize that energy supply is not unbounded. An app, no matter how widely installed, cannot consume more energy than is produced.

You are mistaken. It considers that in the part about "how many times the software would need to run to break even".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com