Quote:
Originally Posted by latepaul
I don't call it lazy because you're talking about a company, an organisation that exists to make money. There may be lazy people working for that company but that's not the same thing.
Choosing not to do something because you can't see how it will make more money, is not, for a company, "lazy", it's doing what they do.
It's the same reason I'm always surprised when people call companies "greedy" as if there's an acceptable level of profit at which they should stop trying.
Why "should" though? Are they being paid to write the smallest code possible? If so then "should" applies, if their employers have other priorities then perhaps not.
And yes things change. We do things now we would never have dreamt of in the days of slower CPUs, smaller memory, less storage and restricted bandwidth. And that is entirely appropriate.
Lest we forget the Y2K "bug" was really a space saving optimisation that lasted longer than it should have.
Which was my point. It's more efficient for the creator and the OP was asking why the creator did it. The only reason the creator should care about inefficiency on the reader's side is if it hurts their ability to sell it. Which I doubt it does.
|
Does the reader even care?