Download as PDF, PPTX
Uploaded byFabio Akita
Premature Optimization 2.0 - Intercon 2016
The document includes an extensive list of various Uber and Airbnb services tailored for unique offerings, as well as a dataset detailing the competitive rankings and Elo ratings of characters in a gaming context. It also references historical advancements in programming languages and notable individuals responsible for these developments. The content appears to intermingle various topics including gaming, programming languages, and service-oriented platforms.
Premature Optimization 2.0 - Intercon 2016
- 1. PREMATURE OPTIMIZATION The Root ofALL Evil @akitaonrails
- 2. PREMATURE OPTIMIZATION The Root ofALL Evil @akitaonrails 2.0
- 3.
- 11. Uber para segurançaparticular Uber para advogados Uber para maconha Uber para massagem Uber para álcool Uber para lavanderia Uber para passeio de cachorro
- 13. Airbnb para barcos Airbnbpara cachorros Airbnb para equipamentos Airbnb para acampamentos Airbnb para banheiros (!!) Airbnb para impressão 3D Airbnb para cozinhas
- 15. Tinder para sapatos Tinderpara cachorros Tinder para notícias Tinder para networking Tinder para empregos Tinder para saias
- 26.
- 27.
- 28. “The Social Network"(2010)
- 29. “The Social Network"(2010)
- 30. “The Social Network"(2010)
- 31. “The Social Network"(2010)
- 32. “The Social Network"(2010)
- 33. “The Social Network"(2010)
- 37. Name Games WinsLoses Points Elo Rating 1 Kong 217 117 100 17 802 2 Samus 211 110 101 9 842 3 Wario 197 102 95 7 824 4 Luigi 186 95 91 4 841 5 Zelda 160 81 79 2 847 6 Pikachu 209 105 104 1 851 7 Yoshi 223 112 111 1 803 8 Mario 203 101 102 -1 820 9 Fox 208 95 113 -18 754 10 Bowser 186 82 104 -22 785
- 38. Name Games WinsLoses Points Elo Rating 1 Kong 217 117 100 17 802 2 Samus 211 110 101 9 842 3 Wario 197 102 95 7 824 4 Luigi 186 95 91 4 841 5 Zelda 160 81 79 2 847 6 Pikachu 209 105 104 1 851 7 Yoshi 223 112 111 1 803 8 Mario 203 101 102 -1 820 9 Fox 208 95 113 -18 754 10 Bowser 186 82 104 -22 785
- 39. Name Games WinsLoses Points Elo Rating 1 Kong 217 117 100 17 802 2 Samus 211 110 101 9 842 3 Wario 197 102 95 7 824 4 Luigi 186 95 91 4 841 5 Zelda 160 81 79 2 847 6 Pikachu 209 105 104 1 851 7 Yoshi 223 112 111 1 803 8 Mario 203 101 102 -1 820 9 Fox 208 95 113 -18 754 10 Bowser 186 82 104 -22 785
- 40. Name Games WinsLoses Points Elo Rating 1 Samus 221 120 101 19 896 2 Kong 217 117 100 17 802 3 Luigi 186 95 91 4 841 4 Zelda 160 81 79 2 847 5 Pikachu 209 105 104 1 851 6 Yoshi 223 112 111 1 803 7 Mario 203 101 102 -1 820 8 Wario 207 102 105 -3 760 9 Fox 208 95 113 -18 754 10 Bowser 186 82 104 -22 785 Samus (2nd) wins from Wario (3rd) 10 times
- 41. Name Games WinsLoses Points Elo Rating 1 Samus 221 120 101 19 896 2 Kong 217 117 100 17 802 3 Luigi 186 95 91 4 841 4 Zelda 160 81 79 2 847 5 Pikachu 209 105 104 1 851 6 Yoshi 223 112 111 1 803 7 Mario 203 101 102 -1 820 8 Wario 207 102 105 -3 760 9 Fox 208 95 113 -18 754 10 Bowser 186 82 104 -22 785 Samus (2nd) wins from Wario (3rd) 10 times
- 42. Name Games WinsLoses Points Elo Rating 1 Samus 221 120 101 19 896 2 Kong 217 117 100 17 802 3 Luigi 186 95 91 4 841 4 Zelda 160 81 79 2 847 5 Pikachu 209 105 104 1 851 6 Yoshi 223 112 111 1 803 7 Mario 203 101 102 -1 820 8 Wario 207 102 105 -3 760 9 Fox 208 95 113 -18 754 10 Bowser 186 82 104 -22 785 Samus (2nd) wins from Wario (3rd) 10 times
- 43. Name Games WinsLoses Points Elo Rating 1 Samus 221 120 101 19 896 2 Kong 227 117 110 7 732 3 Luigi 186 95 91 4 841 4 Zelda 160 81 79 2 847 5 Pikachu 209 105 104 1 851 6 Yoshi 223 112 111 1 803 7 Mario 203 101 102 -1 820 8 Wario 207 102 105 -3 760 9 Bowser 196 92 104 -12 845 10 Fox 208 95 113 -18 754 Kong (2nd) loses to Bowser (10th) 10 times
- 46. Name Games WinsLoses Points Elo Rating 1 Kong 217 117 100 17 802 2 Samus 211 110 101 9 842 3 Wario 197 102 95 7 824 4 Luigi 186 95 91 4 841 5 Zelda 160 81 79 2 847 6 Pikachu 209 105 104 1 851 7 Yoshi 223 112 111 1 803 8 Mario 203 101 102 -1 820 9 Fox 208 95 113 -18 754 10 Bowser 186 82 104 -22 785
- 47. Name Games WinsLoses Points Elo Rating 1 Kong 217 117 100 17 802 2 Samus 211 110 101 9 842 3 Wario 197 102 95 7 824 4 Luigi 186 95 91 4 841 5 Zelda 160 81 79 2 847 6 Pikachu 209 105 104 1 851 7 Yoshi 223 112 111 1 803 8 Mario 203 101 102 -1 820 9 Fox 208 95 113 -18 754 10 Bowser 186 82 104 -22 785 Name Games Wins Loses Points E 1 Pikachu 209 105 104 1 2 Zelda 160 81 79 2 3 Samus 211 110 101 9 4 Luigi 186 95 91 4 5 Wario 197 102 95 7 6 Mario 203 101 102 -1 7 Yoshi 223 112 111 1 8 Kong 217 117 100 17 9 Bowser 186 82 104 -22 10 Fox 208 95 113 -18
- 48. Name Games WinsLoses Points Elo Rating 1 Kong 217 117 100 17 802 2 Samus 211 110 101 9 842 3 Wario 197 102 95 7 824 4 Luigi 186 95 91 4 841 5 Zelda 160 81 79 2 847 6 Pikachu 209 105 104 1 851 7 Yoshi 223 112 111 1 803 8 Mario 203 101 102 -1 820 9 Fox 208 95 113 -18 754 10 Bowser 186 82 104 -22 785 Name Games Wins Loses Points Elo Rating 1 Pikachu 209 105 104 1 851 2 Zelda 160 81 79 2 847 3 Samus 211 110 101 9 842 4 Luigi 186 95 91 4 841 5 Wario 197 102 95 7 824 6 Mario 203 101 102 -1 820 7 Yoshi 223 112 111 1 803 8 Kong 217 117 100 17 802 9 Bowser 186 82 104 -22 785 10 Fox 208 95 113 -18 754
- 49. Name Games WinsLoses Points Elo Rating 1 Pikachu 209 105 104 1 851 2 Zelda 160 81 79 2 847 3 Samus 211 110 101 9 842 4 Luigi 186 95 91 4 841 5 Wario 197 102 95 7 824 6 Mario 203 101 102 -1 820 7 Yoshi 223 112 111 1 803 8 Kong 217 117 100 17 802 9 Bowser 186 82 104 -22 785 10 Fox 208 95 113 -18 754
- 50. Name Games WinsLoses Points Elo Rating 1 Pikachu 209 105 104 1 851 2 Zelda 160 81 79 2 847 3 Samus 211 110 101 9 842 4 Luigi 186 95 91 4 841 5 Wario 197 102 95 7 824 6 Mario 203 101 102 -1 820 7 Yoshi 223 112 111 1 803 8 Kong 217 117 100 17 802 9 Bowser 186 82 104 -22 785 10 Fox 208 95 113 -18 754
- 51. Name Games WinsLoses Points Elo Rating 1 Pikachu 209 105 104 1 851 2 Zelda 160 81 79 2 847 3 Samus 211 110 101 9 842 4 Luigi 186 95 91 4 841 5 Wario 197 102 95 7 824 6 Mario 203 101 102 -1 820 7 Yoshi 223 112 111 1 803 8 Kong 217 117 100 17 802 9 Bowser 186 82 104 -22 785 10 Fox 208 95 113 -18 754
- 52. Name Games WinsLoses Points Elo Rating 1 Zelda 170 91 79 12 904 2 Pikachu 209 105 104 1 851 3 Luigi 186 95 91 4 841 4 Wario 197 102 95 7 824 5 Mario 203 101 102 -1 820 6 Yoshi 223 112 111 1 803 7 Kong 217 117 100 17 802 8 Bowser 186 82 104 -22 785 9 Samus 221 110 111 -1 775 10 Fox 208 95 113 -18 754 Zelda (2nd) wins from Samus (3rd) 10 times
- 53. Name Games WinsLoses Points Elo Rating 1 Zelda 170 91 79 12 904 2 Pikachu 209 105 104 1 851 3 Luigi 186 95 91 4 841 4 Wario 197 102 95 7 824 5 Mario 203 101 102 -1 820 6 Yoshi 223 112 111 1 803 7 Kong 217 117 100 17 802 8 Bowser 186 82 104 -22 785 9 Samus 221 110 111 -1 775 10 Fox 208 95 113 -18 754 Zelda (2nd) wins from Samus (3rd) 10 times
- 54. Name Games WinsLoses Points Elo Rating 1 Zelda 170 91 79 12 904 2 Pikachu 209 105 104 1 851 3 Luigi 186 95 91 4 841 4 Wario 197 102 95 7 824 5 Mario 203 101 102 -1 820 6 Yoshi 223 112 111 1 803 7 Kong 217 117 100 17 802 8 Bowser 186 82 104 -22 785 9 Samus 221 110 111 -1 775 10 Fox 208 95 113 -18 754 Zelda (2nd) wins from Samus (3rd) 10 times
- 55. Name Games WinsLoses Points Elo Rating 1 Zelda 170 91 79 12 904 2 Luigi 186 95 91 4 841 3 Fox 218 105 113 -8 829 4 Wario 197 102 95 7 824 5 Mario 203 101 102 -1 820 6 Yoshi 223 112 111 1 803 7 Kong 217 117 100 17 802 8 Bowser 186 82 104 -22 785 9 Samus 221 110 111 -1 775 10 Pikachu 219 105 114 -9 766 Pikachu (2nd) loses to Fox (10th) 10 times
- 56. ELO Rating System MicrosoftTrueSkill Rating System Google PageRank Facebook EdgeRank
- 59.
- 60.
- 62.
- 63. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Speedcode (1953) John Backus -interpreter took 310 memory words, about 30% of the memory available on a 701 - twenty times that of machine code
- 64. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Fortran (1957) John Backus -first optimizing compiler - complex number types/ electric engineering
- 65. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 CPL (1963) Christopher Strachey -Combined/Cambridge/ Combined Programming Language - low and high level
- 66. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 BCPL (1966) Martin Richards -Basic CPL - Bootstrap CPL - popular choice for bootstrapping a system
- 67. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 occam (1983) INMOS - concurrentprogramming language - Bootstrap CPL - communication between processes work through named channels
- 68.
- 69.
- 70. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Algol (1958) ETH Zürichcommittee - Algol 58, Algol 60, Algol 68, Algol W - Context-free Grammars (Backus-Naur Form/BNF) - "ALGOL 68 was the first (and possibly one of the last) major language for which a full formal definition was made before it was implemented” - “ALGOL 68 has been criticized, most prominently by some members of its design committee such as Hoare and Dijkstra, for abandoning the simplicity of ALGOL 60” - "Steve Bourne, who was on the Algol 68 revision committee, took some of its ideas to his Bourne shell (and thereby, to descendant shells such as Bash) and to C (and thereby to descendants such as C++)."
- 71. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Modula (1960) Niklaus Wirth -"One of the first languages designed from the start for modular programming"
- 72. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 MUMPS (1966) Neil Pappalardo -"Massachusetts General Hospital Utility Multi- Programming System” - hierarchical ACID built-in database - InterSystems Caché (SQL driver)
- 73. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 ADA (1966) MIL-STD - strongtyping, generics - modularity mechanisms (packages) - run-time checking - access to unallocated memory, buffer overflow errors, range violations, off-by-one errors, array access errors, and other detectable bugs - parallel processing (tasks, synchronous message passing, protected objects, and - nondeterministic select statements) - exception handling - widely used in critical systems, where any anomaly might lead to very serious consequences, e.g., accidental death, injury or severe financial loss. Examples of systems where Ada is used include avionics,ATC, railways, banking, military and space technology
- 74. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Hope (1970s) Edinburgh University -NPL and Hope: first languages with call-by-pattern evaluation - influenced Standard ML, Haskell
- 75.
- 76.
- 77. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 SNOBOL (1962) AT&T BellLabs - patterns as a first-class data type - operators for pattern concatenation and alternation - early regular expressions/pattern matching
- 78. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 FLOW-MATIC (1955) Grace Hopper -1952 - A0 compiler - 1959 - COBOL - English-like high level language
- 79. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Simula (1967) Ole-Johan Dahl,Kristen Nygaard - object-oriented programming - inheritance and subclasses - virtual methods, coroutines - Garbage Collector
- 80. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 CLU (1974) Barbara Liskov -early object-oriented programming - classes with constructors and methods, without inheritance - iterators, abstract data types, type-safe parameterized/variant types - multiple return values (parallel assignment)
- 81.
- 82.
- 83. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 ISWIM (1965) Peter J.Landin - "If you See What I Mean" - functional programming (SASL, Miranda, ML, Haskell) - lazy evaluation (SASL, KRC, Hope, Miranda, Haskell,
- 84. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Miranda (1985) David Turner -lazy, purely functional programming - list comprehensions (Haskell)
- 85. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Clean (1987) Radboud UniversityNijmegen - mutable state and I/O is done through a uniqueness typing system (Haskell Monads) - performance comparable to Haskell
- 86. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Self (1987) David Ungar,Randall Smith - dialect of Smalltalk (OOP) - prototype-based (Javascript) - Just in time Compiling (JVM)
- 87. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Prolog (1972) Alain Colmerauer -logic programming (influenced Erlang) - natural language processing - relations, represented as facts and rules - running a query over these relations
- 88.
- 89.
- 90. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Erlang (1986) Joe Armstrong,Robert Virding and Mike Williams - distributed, fault-tolerant, soft-real- time, non-stop applications. It supports hot swapping - processes communicate using message passing
- 91. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 ML (1973) Robin Milner/Universityof Edinburgh - Hindley–Milner type system - parametric polymorphism - “Type Inference” - ML Family (Standard ML, OCaml), Clean, Haskell
- 92. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 REBOL (1997) Carl Sassenrath -"Relative Expression Based Object Language" - dialecting: small, optimized, Domain-Specific Language (DSL) for code and data - influenced JSON
- 93.
- 95. • APL (1964)introduced: array programming, influenced: functional programming • ALGOL (1958) refined both structured procedural programming and the discipline of language specification. • Simula (1967) first language designed to support object-oriented programming; Smalltalk (1972) followed with the first "purely" object-oriented language. • C (1969 - 1973) popular system programming language • Prolog (1972), first logic programming language. • ML (1978) built a polymorphic type system on top of Lisp, pioneering statically typed functional programming languages.
- 96.
- 97.
- 98. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 COBOL (1959) Conference onData Systems Languages (CODASYL) - COBOL 2014
- 99.
- 100.
- 101.
- 104.
- 108. Gordon Moore -Intel co-founder
- 111. 0 1,000,000,000 2,000,000,000 3,000,000,000 4,000,000,000 5,000,000,000 6,000,000,000 7,000,000,000 8,000,000,000 1965 1970 19751980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Intel1Processors1Transistor1Count
- 112. 0 1,000,000,000 2,000,000,000 3,000,000,000 4,000,000,000 5,000,000,000 6,000,000,000 7,000,000,000 8,000,000,000 1965 1970 19751980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Intel1Processors1Transistor1Count Intel 4004 10 µm Intel 80386 Pentium 0.8 µm Itanium 2 Six-core Xeon 7400 8-core Itanium Poulson 32 nm 18-core Xeon Haswell-E5 22 nm 15-core Xeon Ivy Bridge-EX Duo-core + GPU Core i7 Broadwell-U 14 nm
- 113. 0 1,000,000,000 2,000,000,000 3,000,000,000 4,000,000,000 5,000,000,000 6,000,000,000 7,000,000,000 8,000,000,000 1965 1970 19751980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Intel1Processors1Transistor1Count Intel 4004 10 µm Intel 80386 Pentium 0.8 µm Itanium 2 Six-core Xeon 7400 8-core Itanium Poulson 32 nm 18-core Xeon Haswell-E5 22 nm 15-core Xeon Ivy Bridge-EX Duo-core + GPU Core i7 Broadwell-U 14 nm Apple A7 Apple A8 Apple A8X 20 nm
- 117. Gordon Bell -DEC early employee
- 118. $100M $10M $1M $100K $10k $1k $100 $10 1940 1960 19701980 1990 2000 2010
- 119. $100M $10M $1M $100K $10k $1k $100 $10 1940 1960 19701980 1990 2000 2010 Supercomputadores
- 120. $100M $10M $1M $100K $10k $1k $100 $10 1940 1960 19701980 1990 2000 2010 Supercomputadores Minicomputadores
- 121. $100M $10M $1M $100K $10k $1k $100 $10 1940 1960 19701980 1990 2000 2010 Supercomputadores Minicomputadores Workstations
- 122. $100M $10M $1M $100K $10k $1k $100 $10 1940 1960 19701980 1990 2000 2010 Supercomputadores Minicomputadores Workstations Personal Computers
- 123. $100M $10M $1M $100K $10k $1k $100 $10 1940 1960 19701980 1990 2000 2010 Supercomputadores Minicomputadores Workstations Personal Computers Scalable Clusters
- 124. $100M $10M $1M $100K $10k $1k $100 $10 1940 1960 19701980 1990 2000 2010 Supercomputadores Minicomputadores Workstations Personal Computers Small Devices Scalable Clusters
- 125. $100M $10M $1M $100K $10k $1k $100 $10 1940 1960 19701980 1990 2000 2010 Supercomputadores Minicomputadores Workstations Personal Computers Small Devices Scalable Clusters
- 126.
- 127.
- 134. 2010 2011 20122013 20142006 2007 2008 2009
- 135. 2010 2011 20122013 20142006 2007 2008 2009
- 136. 2010 2011 20122013 20142006 2007 2008 2009
- 139. 2017 60 anosde FORTRAN
- 140. 2017 60 anosde FORTRAN 2014 55 anos de COBOL
- 141. 2017 60 anosde FORTRAN 2014 55 anos de COBOL 2013 55 anos de LISP
- 142. 2017 60 anosde FORTRAN 2014 55 anos de COBOL 2013 55 anos de LISP 2012 40 anos de Smalltalk
- 143. 2017 60 anosde FORTRAN 2014 55 anos de COBOL 2013 55 anos de LISP 2012 40 anos de Smalltalk 2015 35 anos de ADA
- 145. Séc XVII CálculoNewton/Leibniz
- 146. Séc XVII CálculoNewton/Leibniz 1930's Lambda Calculus Alonzo Church
- 147. Séc XVII CálculoNewton/Leibniz 1930's Lambda Calculus Alonzo Church 1939 Elo Rating System Arpad Elo
- 148. Séc XVII CálculoNewton/Leibniz 1930's Lambda Calculus Alonzo Church 1939 Elo Rating System Arpad Elo 1975 Vector Space Model Gerald Salton
- 150.
- 152.
- 153.
- 154.
- 155.
- 160.
- 161. $ 4,000 ($ 7MI/yr revenue - 0.68%)
- 162.
- 166.
- 167. $ 100,000+ ($ 800MI/yr revenue - 0.15%)
- 169. • Minimum ITCost:
- 170. • Minimum ITCost: • USD 1000 - Cloud Services
- 171. • Minimum ITCost: • USD 1000 - Cloud Services • USD 3000 - 1 Developer
- 172. • Minimum ITCost: • USD 1000 - Cloud Services • USD 3000 - 1 Developer • USD 4000 - 1 “Responsible” (Manager, Marketing, etc)
- 173. • Minimum ITCost: • USD 1000 - Cloud Services • USD 3000 - 1 Developer • USD 4000 - 1 “Responsible” (Manager, Marketing, etc) • Total: USD 8.000/month (USD 96.000/year)
- 174. • Minimum ITCost: • USD 1000 - Cloud Services • USD 3000 - 1 Developer • USD 4000 - 1 “Responsible” (Manager, Marketing, etc) • Total: USD 8.000/month (USD 96.000/year) • Minimum Business Requirement:
- 175. • Minimum ITCost: • USD 1000 - Cloud Services • USD 3000 - 1 Developer • USD 4000 - 1 “Responsible” (Manager, Marketing, etc) • Total: USD 8.000/month (USD 96.000/year) • Minimum Business Requirement: • Revenue: > USD 2 MI / year
- 176. • Minimum ITCost: • USD 1000 - Cloud Services • USD 3000 - 1 Developer • USD 4000 - 1 “Responsible” (Manager, Marketing, etc) • Total: USD 8.000/month (USD 96.000/year) • Minimum Business Requirement: • Revenue: > USD 2 MI / year • IT Cost / Revenue ratio: < 5%
- 178.
- 180.
- 182.
- 186.
- 187. PREMATURE OPTIMIZATION is the Rootof all Evil
- 190.