Software disenchantment
Admittedly, I stopped reading just over half way, but the crux of the argument appeared to be that software should be fast, though I don&#x27;t recall any justification for that philosophy other than suggesting that it is basically a truth. The article did acknowledge the counter point that in some cases the efficiency gains will never make up for the time spent chasing this efficiency, but it hand-waved that away without interacting with the argument.<p>The other key trait of the article was cherry-picking data and over simplifying domains. Several times the article alluded to the emotional plea that &quot;what could the software possibly be doing that takes up that time&#x2F;space&quot; (my paraphrase) but it didn&#x27;t place any serious attempt to answer that question, using their lack of provided answer as if it were an indication of an invalid answer and comparing various bits of software that do not have feature parity looking as if their only practical difference were  performance. (Edit: Updated wording of previous sentence to be more clear.)<p>There&#x27;s definitely alot to be said about how software could be more efficient as well as the social, environmental, and business costs of inefficiency, but there is also much to be said about how modern software empowers people that otherwise might not be able to write anything to write something &quot;bad&quot; that does what they need or to discuss how modern software developeres tend to aim to be &quot;fast enough&quot; in the way that an structural engineer would choose &quot;strong enough.&quot;<p>There&#x27;s much rich debate to be had, but this article didn&#x27;t include it, instead going for an emotional rant, and failing to engage with actual reason. There is, in my opinion, truth to parts of the argument, but the article made itself clear that it didn&#x27;t want a discussion.