Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > Interests > Tilted Technology


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-29-2004, 01:54 PM   #1 (permalink)
Free Mars!
 
feelgood's Avatar
 
Location: I dunno, there's white people around me saying "eh" all the time
Effectiveness vs Efficiency

Effectiveness = The ability for a program to complete the task it was designed for but sometimes at the expense of efficiency

Efficiency = The time and resource consumed by a program to complete the task but sometimes at the expense of Effectiveness

Someone was telling me that they weren't happy with how slow some Microsoft program (Ie: Excel, Word, etc) were working. I would choose effectiveness over efficiency since you still get work done.

Which would you choose?
__________________
Looking out the window, that's an act of war. Staring at my shoes, that's an act of war. Committing an act of war? Oh you better believe that's an act of war

Last edited by feelgood; 01-29-2004 at 02:36 PM..
feelgood is offline  
Old 01-29-2004, 02:33 PM   #2 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: 'bout 2 feet from my iMac
that said, I want BOTH! If software doesn't do what I need it to, I'm not gonna bother using it.

but if it can't do it in a reasonable amount of time, well, I'm STILL not gonna bother using it.

regarding office: I choose efficiency. I give up a few fancy features and use the much smaller & more efficient TextPad to write my papers. If I need formatting, I launch open-office. thus, I get the features, I get the effectiveness, AND I have paid no money. Sounds like a deal to me.

Last edited by cheerios; 01-29-2004 at 02:44 PM..
cheerios is offline  
Old 01-29-2004, 07:24 PM   #3 (permalink)
Morose
Guest
 
from a fortune file

yeah i was trolling fortune.. i was bored ok..

there one one and it went like this:

in 19XX 2 c-64 computers were all that was required to send a rocket to the moon . In 1998 a Pentium 400 is required to run Office98. ... Something has gone horribly wrong.


Another reason why i 've been liking linux more an more.. short of big programs like evolution (what outlook should be) and Open Office all programs seem relatively bloat free. A user can have 15+ applications running on 8 desktops and not need to churn his hard drive to refresh a web page.

A nice example The Gimp Photoshop(ish) in Under 7mb.


again, as always.. the above is IMO

Morose
 
Old 01-31-2004, 05:39 AM   #4 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
It's ALWAYS a trade-off. And sometimes it's a trade-off that changes over time.

I wrote a program for a customer of mine that was a "people who like this also bought" feature. Basically on each of his web site's product detail pages, we'd get our current item number and cull through the orders from the last 30 days looking for items that were in orders with the current item. Ordered by frequency, decending, limit 3.

Worked great until he tripled the number of SKUS he carries. And then he got a big fat mention on a prominent TV show and his traffic and sales skyrocketed.

Suddenly each of his product detail pages take three minutes to load, as the database grinds under the load of all this data. So we back 30 days off to 10 days which helps a little. Now pages only take 60 seconds....

Ultimately, a rewrite was called for. I turned the script into a cron job that goes through the orders table at midnight or so, pre-caching the association data for each item in the database, and modified the detail page to do a simple query from the cache table. Shazam, instant product detail pages.

So in that case, my initial design was ALL about effectiveness. I didn't have a eye on efficiency at all, because I failed to anticipate the data would grow the way it did.
ratbastid is offline  
Old 01-31-2004, 11:02 AM   #5 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: shittown, CA
Quote:
Originally posted by ratbastid
So in that case, my initial design was ALL about effectiveness. I didn't have a eye on efficiency at all, because I failed to anticipate the data would grow the way it did.
That is the third side of this debate. Planning for the future. Sure the code is fast today but what happens when you double the data set? triple? a thousand times bigger?

Now you have a massive scaling problem and probably 9/10 apps would crumble under such increases and need to be rethought with the new larger dataset in mind.

Time vs Efficency vs what if?
juanvaldes is offline  
Old 01-31-2004, 11:53 AM   #6 (permalink)
Once upon a time...
 
"A Program can be efficient, correct, done on time
- please choose two".


That's why we have the number one rule for all real programmers:

Get it right, then get it fast.
__________________
--
Man Alone
=======
Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure.
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.
manalone is offline  
Old 01-31-2004, 04:47 PM   #7 (permalink)
Insane
 
cowlick's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle
There application of the 90-10 rule -
10% of the functionality adds 90% of the bloat.
10% of the functionality creates 90% of the bugs.
10% (often MUCH less) of the code deserves optimization. 90% doesn't.
__________________
"It's a long story," says I, and let him up.
cowlick is offline  
Old 01-31-2004, 05:38 PM   #8 (permalink)
kel
WARNING: FLAMMABLE
 
Location: Ask Acetylene
I agree with pretty much all of the above.
I budget my time, I don't look at the end product as much because I am only capable of what I am capable.

I think that as long as you put in the requisite fourteen hours a day 6 days a week (that's how we worked it in Israel) and produce a finished product without bugs (although maybe missing features) you've done all they can expect of you. They can take their missing features and stick it ;-)
__________________
"It better be funny"
kel is offline  
Old 02-01-2004, 05:04 AM   #9 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: Pittsburgh
I'm not going to step back into the rant, but this exemplifies what I was trying to get at with the post that seemed to prompt this thread. May not have been me, but I've said very similar in the past.
Quote:
Originally posted by Morose
in 19XX 2 c-64 computers were all that was required to send a rocket to the moon . In 1998 a Pentium 400 is required to run Office98. ... Something has gone horribly wrong.
If you'd like to see what I was after, check out Future of Programming

Last edited by gigawatz; 02-01-2004 at 05:07 AM..
gigawatz is offline  
Old 02-01-2004, 07:46 AM   #10 (permalink)
kel
WARNING: FLAMMABLE
 
Location: Ask Acetylene
Quote:
in 19XX 2 c-64 computers were all that was required to send a rocket to the moon . In 1998 a Pentium 400 is required to run Office98. ... Something has gone horribly wrong.
Until a few months ago my mom was running Windows98 on a pentium 60 with 64 megabytes of RAM. Office ran just fine. We only upgraded because the CPU rendering HTML was an issue with the 40 dollar a month cable service.

The desktop I write this on is a pentium III 450 and I still play online videogames with this box. In fact I play Ravenshield on it, a 3d game which was released only a year ago. Your going to have to explain to me what this is about bloated software. Because I really don't see it.

In fact I see software getting better. I think IE6 was better then the previous versions. It loads faster on my 450 and can load huge pages with 100's of pics without choking up my system and making it non-responsive. It's a shame they stopped developing IE and never added tabbed browsing.

If I had to complain about any specific app I would say bit torrent, it's an incredible CPU hog and I blame it on being written in python.

Sorry but we have to step into this debate until we hash it out. I don't think the grass is greener on the otherside. I think it's darn green right here.
__________________
"It better be funny"
kel is offline  
Old 02-07-2004, 09:39 PM   #11 (permalink)
Addict
 
Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Ideally, code should be functional, AND quick, but realistically, it seldomly works out that way.

So, the first step to any program should be to make it work. Then you worry about optimizing the code. Complete the code, and figure out where the bottle necks are, and focus your attention on those areas. Otherwise, you waste your time. There's no point optimizing that image loading code to get an extra 20us if the image only loads on the screen once in the entire life of the program.
__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing"
- Voltaire
Quadraton is offline  
 

Tags
effectives, efficiency

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:14 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360