[Agingcoder]

It's still relevant.

Other than that, I also think that even when outdated, computing history is worth reading anyway, since it gives you a natural understanding of _why_ we do what we do these days. In your day job, it also gives you a different appreciation for what people did and why they did it, and why 'this horrible code' may have made sense at the time.

Furthermore, performance engineering is fundamentally about opposing code and hardware limitations. If hardware limitations are different, you'll get different code, but the principles remain the same.

If you're curious, write a basic emulator for older hardware (the NES is a great choice) , it's both fun and eye-opening!

Edit: the NES emulator will answer 'how do you fit super mario bros in 32k, and how can it run on such limited hardware?'

[einpoklum]

> computing history is worth reading anyway

Sometimes, but a description of the state of the art in the past does not become a historical tract with the passage of time. The better ones do; others just become outdated.

[Agingcoder]

Well, the ones which fail (and which become outdated) can also teach us valuable lessons : looking at the current state of the art doesn't necessarily tells you what happens if you do things differently.

In other words, we tend to focus on positive results, but negative ones ('don't do this or.. !') can be equally interesting and useful.