"I feel uneasy about design patterns. On the one hand, my university class on design patterns revived my interest in programming. On the other hand, I find most patterns in the Gang of Four book to be irrelevant to my daily work; they solve problems that a choice of programming language or paradigm creates."
My relationship with design patterns changed when I stopped viewing them as prescriptive and started viewing them as descriptive.
Not just dirt cheap, the turn around time to manufacture was significantly lower. Sony had an existing CD manufacturing business and could produce runs of discs in the span of a week or so, whereas cartridges typically took months. That was already a huge plus to publishers since it meant they could respond more quickly if a game happened to be a runaway success. With cartridges they could end up undershooting, and losing sales, or overshooting and end up with expensive, excess inventory.
Then to top it all off, Sony had much lower licensing fees! So publishers got “free” margin to boot. The Playstation was a sweet deal for publishers.
Yea, people generally don't think about these things. People were genuinely surprised to find out that 70% of our expenses as a software business were... salaries. The next largest category? Rent. Everything else was effectively a rounding error.
I just bought a house this year, the previous owners lived in it for about 2 years from brand new. Thankfully it has an ethernet drop to every room upstairs, and in reasonable places on the main floor. Far better than the situation at the last place I lived in.
But annoyingly, it's all Cat5e! Sure, it's fine for gigabit, but now that I have proper networking equipment, I wish they'd have spent the extra few bucks and put in Cat6A or Cat7 so that I could get 10Gbps to my office from the rack in the basement...
I do wonder how much of an impact the PS5 and Xbox Series have on this though since they both have RDNA2 GPUs. Consoles tend to face higher optimization pressure, especially as the generation wears on. It might be why AMD has kept so competitive in gaming as of late.
Like, SBCL compiles and assembles directly to machine code, that's very much the Lisp way. But SBCL has a lot of C that's involved in getting the SBCL image running and interacting with the host.
It's more that it's easier to use C for two reasons. The first is that C is really popular and therefore pretty portable. It's a lingua franca. The other is that because the hosts are largely defined in C, it's easier to interact with. Of course, the host doesn't actually "speak C", it follows some form of ABI. But the reality is that implementing each ABI is non-trivial and you can avoid a lot of pain by just using the host's C compiler/linker/etc. that implements it for you.
I know. I've been spending a lot of time with CL, Scheme, and Clojure the past few years, and the ideal Lisp is some combination of them all. There are aspects of each that I miss in the others. CL has the nicest environment and development story (generally speaking). Scheme feels more refined in the small. And although they can be divisive, I really appreciate Clojure's data structure literals.