[xaedes]

> I think developer speed is more important than optimising clock cycles unnecessarily.

Developer time is spent once. Users will always have to pay the price of additional run time. For. Each. Single. User. Always.

It scales!

Due to the scale of, e.g. slow front-ends, with millions of users, this takes a HUGE amount of time. Only to save a few hours or days to develop it better.

Having 1 million users each wait a single second is already 11 days. If they have to wait that single second for each interaction, it quickly adds up.

It is also bad for the environment due to scaled up inefficiency and resulting increase of power usage.

[dr_zoidberg]

> Having 1 million users each wait a single second is already 11 days.

This will sound like a nitpick, but it's actually worse. 1 million users waiting a single second is 11,000,000 seconds, right? A day has 86,400 seconds. 11 million divided by 86k is 127.31.

That means million users combined just spent 127 days and 8 hours because of the "just one second" delay.

[dr_zoidberg]

Ah that's what happens when I don't have my cup of coffee in the morning. I went from 1 to 11 million in a typo and didn't even reason. So yeah, it was 12,7 days, not 127. Guess I'll double check having my coffee next time I'm doing back-of-the-napkin math /facepalm

[doctor_eval]

Although I 100% agree with you, the problem is that these costs don't affect the original developer; it is an externality; a lot like carbon pollution. It's cheaper for the organisation to optimise for developer speed, even if the cost of that is borne by all the users.

[kaba0]

I’m not claiming that we should not improve that single second, but summing it is a meaningless operation. It doesn’t matter for a user how many other user spent time on it as well.