[acdha]

> I fear computer science is often encumbered by a corrosive culture of "good enough" with respect to performance. We have a lot of baggage and urban myths about performance, from maxims about optimization handed down from the first acolytes of computer science, to modern opinions about UX that over-emphasize simplicity, to a repertoire of clever psychological countermeasures for under-performance such as animation. It's a shame that more people don't appreciate how much more enjoyable computing is when latency is nearly zero.

I wouldn't blame this on computer science: it's really just a long way of saying you get what you measure. It's not that computer scientists don't care about performance, or that human factors / UX isn't an entire field, but simply that most projects don't set performance goals or prioritize them and unsurprisingly most time is spent on the things which are used to judge someone's job performance.

This is especially true when you see how many issues are shared across teams — in this case talking about Windows it's important to remember that during the Ballmer lost years, Microsoft used stack ranking to force managers to categorize a set fraction of people as low performances and reportedly those rankings heavily favored new features over maintenance improvements. In an environment like that, if the change requires coordination across teams it probably just isn't going to happen unless someone very senior makes it a business priority.