Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu!sanjay
From: sanjay@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Sanjay Keshava)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: A tirade about inefficient software & systems
Message-ID: <38697@ut-emx.uucp>
Date: 25 Oct 90 06:34:29 GMT
References: <9886@milton.u.washington.edu>
Sender: news@ut-emx.uucp
Reply-To: sanjay@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Sanjay Keshava)
Organization: UT Austin B-School, High-Tech Capitalism in the making
Lines: 98

In article <9886@milton.u.washington.edu> kraig@biostr.biostr.washington.edu (Kraig Eno) writes:
> Excuse me, I'm fed up.  If you are one of the world's many purveyors of 
> fat software systems, please take these comments to heart; otherwise, 
> ignore my ranting.
> 
> This states briefly what is wrong with the entire software industry right 
> now, and I am sick of it!  I used to think that, as a computer 
> professional, I was supposed to build systems which did what the user 
> wanted to do in the most efficient, direct, and complete manner possible.  
> But NO!  Software companies continually produce bigger, slower packages, 
> and the entire industry is locked into this struggle of software "taking 
> advantage" of faster hardware, and hardware vendors trying to keep pace 
> with resource-hogging software.  Since when are we trying to "figure out 
> how to use" resources?  We have twice as many MIPS as we had previously.  
> GREAT!  Let's make more complicated software that does the same thing 
> we've always done, but slower!

This is an interesting point.  But one needs to make a practical
distinction between computer science and business.  One of the main
thrusts in CS is to develop the best way of doing things, just like
FFTs replaced DFTs.  In a business environment, especially targetted
towards the layperson, a company's concern is to market a product of
"reasonable" quality at minimum cost.  "Reasonable" is the key word.
Bug-free would be ideal, but in many cases it is better to enter a
market first to gain popularity than to enter late.  One can always,
as is customary, go back and fix the bugs later.

A former manager steadfastly believed that most programs could double
their speed if they were re-written properly.  From my own experience
and seeing what's commercially available these days, I must agree with
the original poster and my former manager.

> It wouldn't be so bad if the new software gave us fundamentally different 
> capabilities, but IMHO it rarely does.  Whether you agree with me on this 

I think a recent Wall Street Journal issue had an article about the
software houses playing the upgrade game.  They initially sell a
minimally functional product for hundreds of dollars and subsequently
sell upgrades for about $100.  (I think MS-DOS Word was used as an
example.)  This ensures a predictable steady cash flow to perpetuate
the process.  Most users don't realize that some upgrades provide
little additional functionality and are usually bug-fixes to older
versions.  In my opinion, a user shouldn't be charged for an upgrade
that merely contains bug-fixes to his existing version.

> Can someone convince me that all the world NEEDS windows, bitmapped 
> graphics, image processing, DTP, virtual memory, and PostScript?  And for 

This is purely a marketing issue.  Non-hackers find windows and icons
much easier to use than a command prompt.  Few executives and/or
non-computer-techies have the time or inclination to learn/memorize
commands and all their available options and switches.  Remember the
MacIntosh commercial comparing 1 user manual with several PC or DOS
manuals?  That was a powerful statement.  As for the other stuff, a
salesperson will sell you anything he/she thinks will make your life
easier.

> crying out loud, can someone tell me why every operating system upgrade in 
> the history of computing is BOTH bigger AND slower?  I get so tired of it 

It's called PROGRESS.   :-)

> we had less to take care of, less to worry about.  EXACTLY.  We convince 
> the world that they need bitmapped graphics for everything, 
> what-they-see-is-what-they-get (even though it STILL never comes out they 
> way it looks on screen, even on a NeXT under Display PostScript).  We 

I've noticed this too.  Even with WYSIWYG displays, I and many others
still waste much paper in printouts.  (disclaimer:  I like trees and
try to minimize my printouts.)  It seems like the information age has
not only enhanced information processing but also made it easier to
generate more paperwork.

> And an important corollary to my assertion: PRACTICALLY ALL THE OPERATIONS 
> WE TYPICALLY DO WITH OUR COMPUTERS ARE SIMPLE JOBS.  This includes the 
> normal text editing, spreadsheet, database, communication sorts of tasks 

The jobs may be simple, but the underlying implementation may not be.
Additionally, user interfaces consume HUGE amounts of code and cpu
cycles, especially graphics.

The user interface is a major selling point.  It attracts the
non-technical user by making the application easier to use.  Many
applications are not targetted to the individual consumer or hobbyist.
Big business with the big bucks is a more lucrative market.

> Kraig Eno, kraig@biostr.washington.edu

In general, I agree with your frustrations.  But from a
business/consumer point of view, writing the best program doesn't
always make sense because a user doesn't care how its done as long as
it suits his/her needs.  The additional time required to clean up
programs and make them elegant gives the competition an advantage.


                                           Sanjay Keshava
                                               ->|<-
                             Student in the UT Graduate School of Business