>computers literally made of shit and sticks brought us to

>>62154499
BASIC from 1980 is more like interpreter assembly and JS isn't at fault for the 8GB.

File: 1474326888221.jpg (15KB, 330x244px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 330x244px

>>62154499
>What went wrong?

>>62154499
That's what happens when you want to teach people how to program, yet they don't even know how does the computer work.
Hell, not even some of my classmates know how to build a computer despite having studied the architecture of the cpu and operative systems.

>>62154614
Not that it would be possible to fully understand a modern x64 computer.

>>62154499
if we did land on the moon (the conspiracy still stands), we have the technology to do that even more efficiently now. the reason it isn't being done is because there is no necessity to. the first moon landing was to make the US appear more 'technologically advanced' in the cold war. 'man on moon' pretty much means 'we can nuke the shit out of you, Russia' and it was also large done to raise morale in Americans, and it worked, if you were alive then, try to think back, or ask your dad idc.

there's no apparent reason for a moon landing today, it accomplishes very little. you can only be the first to do something once.

your argument about 'bloated programs' is valid, but it also tells me you're a relative programming noobie who hasn't had a lot of real world experience. (i now expect a "ive been programming 160 years") bloat is inevitable, and the process of removing it is somewhat impractical. its the same reason no one recycles garbage, they could, but its extra effort most people don't want to get into, for what seems like little to no reward. we're not at a storage crisis yet (in both situations) which is why it isn't seen as a top priority issue, the time will come though.

>>62154499
As the standard of living increases, so does the cost in general. Economies of scale come about and make hardware cheap, but the market wants feature rich bloat because they get too comfy with the tons of hardware availability.

Not spending time overoptimizing everything means people can move faster, and businesses and hobbyists alike have decided that agility is more important than optimization.

>>62154944
>>62155068

also adding to this, 'diminishing returns' is a factor. there's a point at which the effort to do something outweighs the result of doing it.

File: index.png (7KB, 190x266px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 190x266px

If you programmed in forth then your code would take up kilobytes and not megabytes

File: IMG_3499.jpg (49KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 320x320px

>>62154499
>why is something easily definable with mathematics easier for a computer than something that requires far more maths and actual graphic assets

OP is an idiot.

>>62154499
>literally made of shit and sticks
>literally
You have to be 18 to post here kiddo

Is html + css really the best we could come up with to render wepages?

>>62155636
Good enough is good enough.

Markup languages and some stylesheet rules are about as far as we'd ever get anyway.

>>62155646
Could compiled webpages even be a thing?

>>62156322
They could be, but if they were compiled then if you had any issue at all the webpage wouldn't display anything at all.

Web pages are a very good place for interpreted language. Which CSS and markup fall under.

>>62155636
HTML+CSS+JS is like having to repeat everything you say in conversation three times in three languages, with pieces of information, nuance, or structural clarification only possible to convey in each one.
It's retarded and we're retarded for still doing it.

>>62154499
The stuff that desktops in 2017 handle is far more complex than anything connected to spaceflight in 1969.

>>62154499
How do we regulate programming? Why do we let unlicensed programmers write code when all of society depends on functioning computer systems?