[netdevphoenix]

> I’ve been playing AoE2

If you buy poor software instead of good software (yes, branding, IP and whatever but that's just even more reason for companies not to make it good), complaining doesn't help does it. Commercial software is made to be sold and if it sells enough that's all company executives care about. As long as enough people buy it, it will continue to be made.

Company devs trying to get more time/resources to improve performance will be told no unless they can make a realistic business case that explains how the expense of increased focus on performance will be financially worth in terms of revenue. If enough people buy poor software, improving it is not business smart. Companies exist to make money not necessarily to make good products or provide a good service.

I understand your point but you need to understand that business execs don't care about that unless it significantly impacts revenue or costs in the present or very near future.

[sgarland]

Nah, it’s not just that. IME, most devs are completely unaware of how this stuff works. They don’t need to, because there are so many abstractions, and because the industry expectation has shifted such that it isn’t a requirement. I’ve also met some who are aware, but don’t care at all, because no one above them cares.

Tech interviews are wildly stupid: they’ll hammer you on being able to optimally code some algorithm under pressure on a time limit, but there’s zero mention of physical attributes like cache line access, let alone a realistic problem involving data structures. Just once, I’d love to see “code a simple B+tree, and then discuss how its use in RDBMS impacts query times depending on the selected key.”