Lifetime, not real-time
Early computers were so slow, it makes sense that efficiency would become the initial dominant software design priority. The descriptor of good-enough computer performance has traditionally been “real-time,” meaning that the code processes and responds to requests without significant delay.
Yet as hardware gets faster, it becomes easier for programmers to achieve this real-time performance for even very complex processes. As we enter into an era of software-as-service, as we increasingly depend on data and processes running continuously and consistently on remote servers for years at a time, I argue that we are beginning to develop a different criteria for our code.
I previously referred to this idea as slow computing, but I think Lifetime Computing has a better ring to it.
rss
April 14th, 2007 at 7:25 am
With the term “Lifetime” there is no chance for exit. I don’t know if I want to care about my data in retirement.
For me the term “slow” somehow indicates sustainability and a bit of wise scepticism while “lifetime” means(for me): enslaved by bits.
Slow food, slow cities, slow sex. Slow is the new fast!
April 14th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Point taken. I’ve been thinking about it in terms of dependability, but you’re right that the flip side is dependence.
The only trouble with ’slow’ is that no one wants a computer or software that actually runs slowly. But maybe a little confusion in the terminology is interesting.