An Exercise in Efficiency for Code

Here's a physics engine put in only 1024 bits (impressive!). Each dot follows Hook's law of "being a spring" so it's an interesting little toy, especially for how condensed it is!

I have always wondered why programmers don't design their code to be far more efficient.

To me having the most efficient code would mean having the fastest program response times and working speeds which is what everyone wants from their stuff.

My speculation is that hardware is so cheap. When I first learned to program (Early 1970's), you had to account for every bit and byte. When 64k was the upper limit for memory, your code had to be as spare as possible. With faster microprocessors and buses and oodles of cheap memory (counted in gigs and teras, for heaven's sake!) the pressure to optimize is minimal.

I do things in Excel now that I used to have to write my own program for and then start it running when I left for the day, hoping it would be finished by the time I came in the next day.

I follow the cheap hardware concept well enough but still by far portable devices tend to be up against battery power limitations which I think could be greatly alleviated with the simplification of software to reduce the amount of hardware needed to run a program.

Wouldn't trimming down a software program to run on 30% of its present needed code and hardware also give a near proportional savings in battery power usage as well?

I admit I know nothing of apps for phones and such. However, the biggest energy user on my android phone is the display. As long as the app has the display on, I doubt optimized code would do much to improve battery life.

Perhaps one of our friends can provide more info and lead us to a reasonable conclusion.

Actually, the amount of code is less a factor in power consumption as is the speed at which it runs. Cutting clock speeds drastically reduces power consumption.

And simplifying software and reducing hardware rarely come at the same time. There is usually an inverse relationship and you must write more software to make up for the missing hardware.

I have always wondered why programmers don't design their code to be far more efficient.

Because, like all other engineers, we are lazy. Um, I mean, we prize efficiency in the creation and maintenance of software, which is costly and difficult to manage. Usually, the most efficiently-executing design is not the simplest to create or the easiest to understand and maintain.

(It's nice to be back after two+ years on the dark side [management].)

Cool programs. I take it the train never stops. I got the feeling I was going in circles. I remember the first HP computers that had 1kB of total memory. The techs checked them out by programming them with the row of toggle switches on the front panel!