Verbosity



  • Our team rule is: minimize abbreviations in names.

    Ok, no problem. Then I encounter a db, erm, database table named: Flags, which contains a column named: IncludeExcludeFlag, which contains the distinct values: 'INCLUDE RECORD', 'EXCLUDE RECORD'. Honestly, a simple 'I', 'E' wouldn' have sufficed here?

    OBTW, the table has > 2 billion rows and the field is non nullable.

     


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    How about an Exclude column that's a bit (boolean)?



  • Those names aren't terrible. OpenGL function prototypes are terrible.

    PFNWGLCREATECONTEXTATTRIBSARBPROC


  • @snoofle said:

    Our team rule is: minimize abbreviations in names.

    Ok, no problem. Then I encounter a db, erm, database table named: Flags, which contains a column named: IncludeExcludeFlag, which contains the distinct values: 'INCLUDE RECORD', 'EXCLUDE RECORD'. Honestly, a simple 'I', 'E' wouldn' have sufficed here?

    OBTW, the table has > 2 billion rows and the field is non nullable.

     Sounds more like n imlementation problem than an abbreviations problem. As a side note, it is increasingly common (and I fully support) having all identifiers checked against a controlled dictionary that only has VERY well known abbreviations). Words are split at each capital letter.



  •  The point wasn't the column name. It was that while abbreviations are considered taboo, they put 2+ billion 14 character strings into what could have been 2 billion 1 character strings (26gb savings), or as has been pointed out, even into a bit fieldcolumn.

    I've since discovered this is done in pretty much every table in the db - hundreds of gb wasted. On your basic pc with a 1 TB disk, that may not be so bad, but these are on expensive san units across multiple environments; plus mirroring, plus backup; it adds up!

     



  • @joe.edwards said:

    How about an Exclude column that's a bit (boolean)?

    +1  This is what I would have thought.



  • @snoofle said:

    On your basic pc with a 1 TB disk
    Given that my two main (that I physically use) machines (home+work) are laptops, is this option going to be cheap(er) any time soon?



    Or to rephrase what I'm trying to ask, a few years ago I'd normally advise people with {£|$|whatever}X to spend, to spend it on a desktop, rather than a laptop (unless they needed mobility.) Are we seeing equity between the two yet?



  • @PJH said:

    @snoofle said:
    On your basic pc with a 1 TB disk
    Given that my two main (that I physically use) machines (home+work) are laptops, is this option going to be cheap(er) any time soon?

    Or to rephrase what I'm trying to ask, a few years ago I'd normally advise people with {£|$|whatever}X to spend, to spend it on a desktop, rather than a laptop (unless they needed mobility.) Are we seeing equity between the two yet?

    No



  • We're expecting to see parity between components and miniaturized versions of those components?



  • @Sutherlands said:

    We're expecting to see parity between components and miniaturized versions of those components?

    Why not? Someday today's top-of-the-line smartphones will be commodities. Seems wasteful to keep along old factories for less desirable components.

     

    How many vacuum tube factories are there still around?
    (Honest question. I have no idea)



  • @Zecc said:

    How many vacuum tube factories are there still around?

    (Honest question. I have no idea)
     

    Probably a few, if only to supply amp makers.



  • @Zecc said:

    @Sutherlands said:

    We're expecting to see parity between components and miniaturized versions of those components?

    Why not? Someday today's top-of-the-line smartphones will be commodities. Seems wasteful to keep along old factories for less desirable components.
    I'm not sure where you were going with this.  Whatever the latest technological advance, a more compact version will always be more difficult to make, no?


  • How many vacuum tube factories are there still around?
    (Honest question. I have no idea)

    Vacuum tubes for guitar amplifiers will never be obsoleted. Though I use a Pocket POD because it's the only thing on the planet that complements the sheer bass noise this Les Paul copy kicks out.



  • @PJH said:

    Or to rephrase what I'm trying to ask, a few years ago I'd normally advise people with {£|$|whatever}X to spend, to spend it on a desktop, rather than a laptop (unless they needed mobility.) Are we seeing equity between the two yet?
    It's not cheaper, but for a couple of years, at least, I've generally been advising people to go for the laptop in most scenarios. It won't be quite as powerful, but for most users that doesn't matter - almost all reasonably priced laptops are more than powerful enough to meet their needs, and the portability is useful.

    In general, the only parts of laptops that add any significant cost over a PC are the battery and chassis.



  • See, I used to recommend people buy desktops because they're more reconfigurable and reliable than laptops as well as a darned sight cheaper, but I've realised in retrospect I should have said "buy anything because there's a good chance you'll spend £300 on a machine without enough RAM to run the OS it came with, a tiny slow hard drive, a hugely overpowered CPU, tonnes of bloatware that dies two days after the warranty runs out anyway".

    These people think three minutes to open an Explorer window is acceptable. So hey. I just don't know.



  • @intertravel said:

    In general, the only parts of laptops that add any significant cost over a PC are the battery and chassis.

     There is one more differential in cost...Desktops are quite often "repairable" where laptops are not. From a pricing standpoint I always calculate that the laptop will be worth $0.00 the day after the warrenty expire.

     Right now I have 5 different laptops that are all of sufficient capabilities to be useful for many things. But each one of them has a "broken part", and not one of these parts are available from the vendorss (three different brands). Occasionally I will see on eBay/CraigsList/etc. a broken machine where the broken part is different, and the price is near zero, this is about the only way to "repair" one of these machines.

    If they were desktops, replacing a component is typically much easier. Even if the MoBo dies, a new Mobo will often fit, and cost about $60.



  • @Sutherlands said:

    I'm not sure where you were going with this.  Whatever the latest technological advance, a more compact version will always be more difficult to make, no?
    What I meant is building a modern car is technically much more complex than building a wooden carriage, but because you don't see much demand for the latter, there aren't many factories.

    People will prefer a computer they can carry around to one they can't, no?

     



  • @TheCPUWizard said:

    There is one more differential in cost...Desktops are quite often "repairable" where laptops are not.
    That's actually a very good point in favour of desktops.



  • @TheCPUWizard said:

    @intertravel said:

    In general, the only parts of laptops that add any significant cost over a PC are the battery and chassis.

     There is one more differential in cost...Desktops are quite often "repairable" where laptops are not. From a pricing standpoint I always calculate that the laptop will be worth $0.00 the day after the warrenty expire.

     Right now I have 5 different laptops that are all of sufficient capabilities to be useful for many things. But each one of them has a "broken part", and not one of these parts are available from the vendorss (three different brands). Occasionally I will see on eBay/CraigsList/etc. a broken machine where the broken part is different, and the price is near zero, this is about the only way to "repair" one of these machines.

    If they were desktops, replacing a component is typically much easier. Even if the MoBo dies, a new Mobo will often fit, and cost about $60.

    Yes and no. There's also the factor of upgradeability. For most people, though, neither of these are considerations - particularly if in a non-work context, where I know I'll be the one to end up fixing it if it breaks. It's an advantage to me if a) they can bring the computer to me and b) I can tell them 'sorry, nothing I can do' 🙂

    Seriously, though, I haven't had any trouble getting replacement parts for laptops. It's rare that the manufacturer's rip-off spares are worth the money, so generally people make do without, but you can get any part off a decent mainstream laptop (by definition of decent).

    Really, though, it's about how people use PCs these days. I move my laptop from one room to another all the time - if I had a desktop I'd have to pick one spot and keep it there (most of the time). Mobility is a real asset for most users, and one that they'll notice far more than slightly faster loading times.



  • @Zecc said:

    People will prefer a computer they can carry around to one they can't, no?

    Ok.  Yes, but why would that preference mean that they will be of equal price?  What do the factories have to do with anything?  Nobody is keeping around old factories (or what are "old" factories are being retooled). 

    It's a complete red herring.  Why would you expect that the spec for a laptop and desktop at the same price will even out?


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.