|
|
|
|
|
by cfallin
4318 days ago
|
|
Yep, or even your own time if you run the program multiple times. E.g., if your code is running on a thousand machines, that CPU-hour savings that cost $0.05 now costs $50.00; past a certain point it does pay to throw engineers at insane micro-optimizations. Or nonlinear payoffs from CPU time improvements -- e.g. meeting a realtime deadline or else the system is useless. The "CPU-hour vs. engineer-hour" comparison works only when the engineer him/herself runs their own program, exactly once, without other constraints. |
|
Or when the system is designed such that you can scale hardware to decrease run time. Sometimes the choice is between throwing programmer time at a performance problem or throwing hardware at it, and often the economics work out in favor of the latter.