IreneW

williamlondon said:

IreneW said:

"As long as Apple fails to recognize new messaging standards,"

Oh ffs, [rolls eyes] Typical negative troll's context.

In what way? Was I wrong in any way? Please let me know in that case. 
I just tried to pint out that it is currently impossible to have a proper cross-platform group chat, without using third-party apps. 

genovelle said:

avon b7 said:

I'd say the opposite is possibly true in the EU. For years Messages has been a rarely used option as far as I can tell while WhatsApp has been a must use for almost every person I know.

My wife has never ever used Messages for IM. I only know one person that still uses sms for regular messages and that's on Android.

I use WhatsApp, Telegram, Viber and Signal.

Every now and then I see waves of people appearing as new users on Telegram but I'd say WhatsApp is still the IM client that reigns supreme here. 

They are missing sooo much by using 3rd party Apps. One of the best features is that when sending to someone new, it will revert to a text automatically if the user is not on the iMessages network 

Well, that part doesn't work at all when having a group conversation. As long as Apple fails to recognize new messaging standards, the only reliable way to group chat is using e.g. WhatsApp. Like it or not.

Detnator said:

IreneW said:

sflocal said:

IreneW said:

Well, let's just say that if their engineers are spending 45 minutes per day, just waiting far a compilation to finish, doing nothing else, they are doing it wrong.

Even if they cut that in half.

Do you even develop software?  I do.  Compiling does not mean sitting on one’s thumb with nothing to do.  It means monitoring the compile in the event of compile-time errors which then need to be addressed.  If that means getting up for a few minutes to get coffee and come back, great. 

Cutting down compile times like that is huge.

Yes. Developing software is my day job, together with leading a team of programmers and testers.
My IDE tells me in real time if there are any syntactical errors or obvious logical problems in my code. The build server under my desk continuously builds, lints and checks, including all unit tests, even before i even think about committing anything. The build farm in our server room does the heavy lifting of rebuilding Yocto and target images.
When a build, for some reason, breaks my workflow there are always closely related tasks to do, like adding unit tests, requirement linking or writing docs.

Well, neither the article nor the source said it was ONE 45 minute compile each day. More likely it's somewhere from 15x three minute compiles to 45x one minute compiles (now 15x 90s - 45x 30s instead).

However your compiling is being done, each compile is still an event, even if it's 2700 one second compiles per day (one of many possible numerical interpretations of "continuous").  And you can't claim you don't spend any of those seconds either monitoring or assessing the result of the compiling.

Still... instead of using one computer (like these guys you're criticizing) to handle your development, you have two... plus a build farm.  Got it.

Note, as I already pointed out, that i definitely support buying the best computers money can buy for your developers. That, and two or three large screens, adjustable desks, comfy chairs, whatever... Keep the developers happy, or they will leave. That's a fact. 

But, please, do not claim a decent engineer waste time waiting for a compiler to do its work! 

The original article sounds more like it is describing a code factory, measuring productivity in LoC per hour, and believing 75-80% of the time should be spent hacking away on the keyboard. While that has been a popular view, at least in some parts af the industry, the success rate has been low (and, when it has worked, mainly attributed to low cost offshoring, allowing a brute force approach).

The most valuable developer time is the time spent thinking.

sflocal said:

IreneW said:

Well, let's just say that if their engineers are spending 45 minutes per day, just waiting far a compilation to finish, doing nothing else, they are doing it wrong.

Even if they cut that in half.

Do you even develop software?  I do.  Compiling does not mean sitting on one’s thumb with nothing to do.  It means monitoring the compile in the event of compile-time errors which then need to be addressed.  If that means getting up for a few minutes to get coffee and come back, great. 

Cutting down compile times like that is huge.

Yes. Developing software is my day job, together with leading a team of programmers and testers.
My IDE tells me in real time if there are any syntactical errors or obvious logical problems in my code. The build server under my desk continuously builds, lints and checks, including all unit tests, even before i even think about committing anything. The build farm in our server room does the heavy lifting of rebuilding Yocto and target images.
When a build, for some reason, breaks my workflow there are always closely related tasks to do, like adding unit tests, requirement linking or writing docs.

muthuk_vanalingam said:

IreneW said:

willett said:

A real-world example of 45 minutes waiting for builds cut in half, translated to a 3 month payback on buying a new M1 laptop.  That’s powerful validation of the SoC and system engineering that went into this machine.

Well, let's just say that if their engineers are spending 45 minutes per day, just waiting far a compilation to finish, doing nothing else, they are doing it wrong.

Even if they cut that in half.

While what you said is true, it is a short-sighted one and misses the bigger picture. It should be looked at in the context in which it was made. It was an attempt at quantifying a benefit which is a qualitative one. The takeaway should not be that people using the computer were wasting time earlier (which they can do even with a faster machine). It should be that the more responsive machine saves time on a daily basis & in-turn money for the owner of the machine. And that the additional cost of the machine pays for itself in a short period of time (not for all users, but for the right audience - in this case developers who have demanding tasks to be done using the machine).

Note that I'm not saying their developers should not get their new shiny toys -- they should, and it is likely a great economic decision, because happy engineers produce better code and tend to stay employed.

Retention saves a lot of mone.Developers idling while compiling, not so much. Sounds more like code monkeys in a factory.