Protect .NET source code by obfuscating it?

[jcarle]

I'm using Visual C++ '98, he's probably using something newer.

So what you're saying is that you're using a compiler that can't even optimize code for Pentium IIIs? Considering the compiler would have no clue on what SSE is (released in 1999). So your compiler has no way to optimize for SSE, SSE2, SSE3... knowing that, I think without even benchmarking anything, I'm sure the author's code would be faster then yours, regardless of binary size.

[glocK_94]

And there will always be fanatics in each camp with their agendas that will often talk/spread FUD, shills, apologists, biased people, idiots, people with irrational hatred, optimists and pessimists, people into the latest fad, people who comment on things they have no basic/fundamental understanding of, along with a large group of uninformed/misinformed folks and the good ol' trolls. No thread will ever change anything to this.

And if anything, polls are a very bad idea. Let any 12yo kid who has no clue about a specific technology (isn't a programmer, doesn't know the language nor the framework/libs, how it affects development in any significant way, or anything like that) to vote "it sucks!" or "it teh roxx!" really accomplishes nothing at all. It's as insightful as polls with semi-random votes about the latest gen gaming consoles (mainly folks voting against the company they dislike), or the results of a Vista poll (if there was one) - lots of people would say it sucks, no matter what (with or without any reasons with a basis in reality or technical merit of any kind), and the same poll a year later would be VERY different... Polls are a fun thing to know things like the favorite colour of most members perhaps, but not so much for highly technical/complicated stuff most site users have an extremely limited knowledge/understanding of...

So basically, nobody knows what they're talking about except you. The rest of the world (or even MSFN) is just a mass of complete idiots with useless opinions.

Your posts made me think about those politicians who wanted us to vote the european Constitution so much. We voted 'no' but for them it's not because it's we did not want it. It's because we didn't understand how good it was! Silly us...

Anyway. I agree that between a 5kb prog and a 50kb prog, there's an unoticable difference, but the way you think (since we got space, let's waste it!) is dangerous. That's how we now got apps or OS that are getting a lot bigger for no reasons. And no, not everyone can afford buying a 500gb HDD every year.

About .NET: the average users doesn't like .NET because it requires to install hundreds of data (=bloat) just to be able to execute some small programs.

Yes, it IS making programmers life easier but its also a pain for users. No matter if people have more space or faster internet connections. Work on that (smaller .NET installers for exemple) instead of flaming those that disagree...

[jcarle]

So basically, nobody knows what they're talking about except you. The rest of the world (or even MSFN) is just a mass of complete idiots with useless opinions. Your posts made me think about those politicians who wanted us to vote the european Constitution so much. We voted 'no' but for them it's not because it's we did not want it. It's because we didn't understand how good it was! Silly us...

I agree with crahak. Just because someone knows how to re-install windows or make some changes to the registry does not make them a programmer. It's only normal to be able to PROPERLY discuss issues at hand when it comes to programming that knowledge and understanding of programming is required. It's the same reason why I would never enter a debate regarding the current state of the global economy because I'm simply not informed on the matter.

Anyway. I agree that between a 5kb prog and a 50kb prog, there's an unoticable difference, but the way you think (since we got space, let's waste it!) is dangerous. That's how we now got apps or OS that are getting a lot bigger for no reasons. And no, not everyone can afford buying a 500gb HDD every year.

Why in the world would a company who's obviously writing software for revenue WANT to make it's programs unneccesarily bigger? It doesn't make sense. The larger the program the more it costs in media and hosting bandwidth to sell it's program, which means less end revenue.

About .NET: the average users doesn't like .NET because it requires to install hundreds of data (=bloat) just to be able to execute some small programs. Yes, it IS making programmers life easier but its also a pain for users. No matter if people have more space or faster internet connections. Work on that (smaller .NET installers for exemple) instead of flaming those that disagree...

This thread has obviously flown way above your head and you've completely missed the point. Not to mention, for a heavily debated topic, this is one thread where I have seen the least flaming so far...

[CoffeeFiend]

So basically, nobody knows what they're talking about except you. The rest of the world (or even MSFN) is just a mass of complete idiots with useless opinions.

I don't know how you went from "random votes by anyone who likely knows nothing or very litlte about the subject not giving meaningful results" to "everyone but me's an id***". You're putting words in my mouth. Perhaps you're angry about which group you fall into or something, but that doesn't change a thing. Much like jcarle said, it's a complex topic, and if we opened a "global economy debate" thread, you know most people would just be saying "they're stealing our jobs!" and such - totally disregarding the big picture and real issues (so that'd be pretty pointless too).

Anyway. I agree that between a 5kb prog and a 50kb prog, there's an unoticable difference, but the way you think (since we got space, let's waste it!) is dangerous.

Again, putting words in my mouth. Where did I exactly say let's just waste disk space for no reason? I haven't. What I'm saying is that optimizing executables for the absolute tinyest size, disregarding any execution speed/resource usage and all (using olde compilers that can't even optimize for P3s, let alone anything newer or use SIMD instruction sets), is a waste of time at best. The disk space gain is pointless like you said, and lowering performance significantly is the process makes it a very bad idea. If executables need to be twice as big as they were 10 years ago, then so be it. Compilers aren't just making bigger executables for the sake of it. They're made by very intelligent folks, and if they made a compiler that makes bigger executables than the previous version, there must be a reason behind it (like speed gains).

That's how we now got apps or OS that are getting a lot bigger for no reasons.

Yeah, it's not like because they have tons of new features, ship with far more content, or anything like that. They just decided to use more disk space for the sake of it. Right...

About .NET: the average users doesn't like .NET because it requires to install hundreds of data (=bloat) just to be able to execute some small programs.

Ah, the popular "they're stealing our jobs!" point of view. Rich frameworks full of functionality reusable by any app != bloat (that's an extremely limited/biased view). Totally disregarding everything else - even the "easily accessible" implications/consequences (like cost/time to market) that affect end-users a great deal... The bloat claims seem to be mainly from people who don't seem to fully understand what the .NET framework is and what it does. Besides, it's actually working against bloat, by having the most common code/functionality implemented once (in the framework) rather than each app having to include their own version/implementation of it (makes smaller prorgrams).

Yes, it IS making programmers life easier but its also a pain for users. No matter if people have more space or faster internet connections. Work on that (smaller .NET installers for exemple) instead of flaming those that disagree...

The .NET framework 2.0 installer is like 20MB - I downloaded bigger stuff on a 28.8k modem on a P1 ten years ago, and it's a one-time deal (even available on windows update). Besides, there's no download required with Vista: it ships with it preinstalled. So people won't be able to complain about that anymore. It's no worse than having to download your video card drivers once, and I don't hear you saying video card manufacturers are making it a pain for users, and that unrelated 3rd partys should work on making smaller installers for it so we can stop complaining (disregarding that most video drivers nowadays are actually bigger).

Edited December 21, 2006 by crahak

[LLXX]

So what you're saying is that you're using a compiler that can't even optimize code for Pentium IIIs? Considering the compiler would have no clue on what SSE is (released in 1999). So your compiler has no way to optimize for SSE, SSE2, SSE3... knowing that, I think without even benchmarking anything, I'm sure the author's code would be faster then yours, regardless of binary size.

The operations that the program does does not require SSE, and SSE does not make binaries bigger - quite the opposite, since the point of SSE is to replace many instructions with one, to operate on several data values simultaneously thus increasing speed and decreasing size (i.e. increase efficiency).

Also, don't forget that the author would have to enable SSE opts explicitly (/Ox /arch:SSE) for it to have an effect - this option is disabled by default for compatibility reasons; seeing as the released binary was seemingly compiled in debug mode, I doubt he even knew.

Would be interesting to see what speed and size of binary would be obtained from a newer compiler at max optimization though.

[CoffeeFiend]

and SSE does not make binaries bigger - quite the opposite, since the point of SSE is to replace many instructions with one

Absolutely, toally wrong - all of it! That's not the purpose of SSE and other instruction sets AT ALL! Binary size is a non-issue here, and replacing a few instructions with a couple less here and there won't make much of a change. And since data has to be properly aligned and such, it will usually result in a larger binary (but then again, who cares? it runs faster!)

The point of it is to manipulate more data at once (in parallel) to make program execution MUCH faster. You won't find "to reduce executable size" in any docs about SSE or anywhere like that, because it wasn't the purpose of it whatsoever. In fact, you'll find lots of technical papers, books and such talking about how MMX/SSE/whatever actually increases it somewhat. A quick compile of most [not necessarily all] code with the right options should prove that easily.

[glocK_94]

Perhaps you're angry about which group you fall into or something, but that doesn't change a thing.

Again, making statements about other people not knowing a thing. I've rarely seen people with such an high opinion about themselves. That's why I decided to post.

Where did I exactly say let's just waste disk space for no reason? I haven't.

And you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that. I even agreed with you about how insignificant can be a few kb. I just said it was a dangerous idea to believe programmers shouldn't care about the size because people got (supposably) lots of space. That's the wrong way of putting things.

That's how we now got apps or OS that are getting a lot bigger for no reasons.

Yeah, it's not like because they have tons of new features, ship with far more content, or anything like that. They just decided to use more disk space for the sake of it. Right...

You were yourself mentionning video drivers. Don't tell me it's not affected with more bloat every version. But eh, I'm sure you think Vista brings really amazing functionnalities that justify all this waste of space... Right...

Ah, the popular "they're stealing our jobs!" point of view. Rich frameworks full of functionality reusable by any app != bloat (that's an extremely limited/biased view). Totally disregarding everything else - even the "easily accessible" implications/consequences (like cost/time to market) that affect end-users a great deal... The bloat claims seem to be mainly from people who don't seem to fully understand what the .NET framework is and what it does. Besides, it's actually working against bloat, by having the most common code/functionality implemented once (in the framework) rather than each app having to include their own version/implementation of it (makes smaller prorgrams).

Again, you're stating from the fact that I disagree that I don't know what I'm talking about... And putting words in my mouth. I said FOR THE AVERAGE USER, downloading the frameworks means pain. Yes, downloading drivers is a pain too for most people. That's why so many just use default drivers.

.NET is useful for programmers but the user doesn't see that. (And yes, it's 20mb to download but it's way more to install).

You don't understand why people don't like it? I'm giving you one answer but you're not willing to listen. Indeed, with framworks included in Vista, you'll see that it will get much more popular.

[CoffeeFiend]

Again, making statements about other people not knowing a thing. I've rarely seen people with such an high opinion about themselves. That's why I decided to post.

Suggestion/hypotesis/possibility != statement (I didn't make any statements). I hardly have a high opinion of myself. I know enough to work in the field, but I'm not a guru by any means (you should see the great ones on newsgroups... Scott Guthrie, Rocky Lothka, Peter Bromberg, etc - tons of them, and really bright folks! Had some great conversations with 'em, and I loved reading many of their books) If you mean me saying people without basic rudimentary programming knowledge shouldn't bash things they don't understand at all (same on other topics), then sure, you can say "I'm looking up on them".

Where did I exactly say let's just waste disk space for no reason? I haven't.

And you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that.

It seems to me like you have:

the way you think (since we got space, let's waste it!) is dangerous. That's how we now got apps or OS that are getting a lot bigger for no reasons

Saying that people actually have that mentality, and this is how OS'es got this bloated (and now drivers too).

I'm sure you think Vista brings really amazing functionnalities that justify all this waste of space...

Absolutely! Without any doubt at all. But the average end-user definitely doesn't, as they only notice GUI/theme changes, and hardly cares about anything else (like all the amazing underlying changes and important improvements).

[Zxian]

1024 times the size, yet only 100 times the speed? Size and speed are often directly proportional, as in the case of opts like loop unrolling and function inlining (indeed, the fastest code is a straight line of execution), and one usually settles for a medium between extreme speed and extreme size which maximizes efficiency. In that case above, maximal efficiency (which balances speed and size) occurs somewhere between 100MB and 100KB.

How do you define the "efficiency" of a compiled program? I've never seen anything of the sort come out of any of my courses that I've taken (and I sat in on about half the lectures of a course that teaches you how to make a compiler). The things that my assembly courses discussed was speed, speed, and more speed. What's the major complaint about people who rant about Norton? It's slow. Most people don't care (or perhaps don't even know) how much disk space it takes up, but what do they notice - the speed (or lack thereof).

You were yourself mentionning video drivers. Don't tell me it's not affected with more bloat every version. But eh, I'm sure you think Vista brings really amazing functionnalities that justify all this waste of space... Right...

...

Again, you're stating from the fact that I disagree that I don't know what I'm talking about... And putting words in my mouth. I said FOR THE AVERAGE USER, downloading the frameworks means pain. Yes, downloading drivers is a pain too for most people. That's why so many just use default drivers.

.NET is useful for programmers but the user doesn't see that. (And yes, it's 20mb to download but it's way more to install).

Video drivers usually also come with a performance increase. Anyone who's got a modern video card and wants to get the most performance out of it will probably be downloading the latest drivers as soon as they come out.

Downloading a installing a single package is a pain? I've never heard anyone say that needing to install a framework is "stupid". I explain to them that it means that we can have better software made quicker, and they all go "Oh! That's a good thing then. Let's install it."

I deal with a lot of "average joe" computer users, and not one has ever complained about the size of the JRE or .NET frameworks. Never. To be honest, MSFN is probably the only place where I've seen so much bickering over a programming language. Almost everytime that a program was been written in .NET (except for nLite... it's a "magical" .NET program that doesn't count in the discussion) you have the ".NET-haters" who come in and complain about it, before even having a look at what the app does! Oh but wait... ever since nuhi made nLite .NET based, a lot of the old anti-NET group have quieted down. Maybe they now see that nuhi's application is easier for him to develop, and that he can make a better program...

To be honest, the only person who ever worries about filling up their hard drive with programs is my mother. That's in part my fault because I filled up our old 1.5GB hard drive with games like MechWarrior2 and the like. She even asked me if Office 2003 would fill up her 40GB drive! I said no... it'll be like one of those books on the bookshelf over there, and she was happy.

[glocK_94]

Video drivers usually also come with a performance increase. Anyone who's got a modern video card and wants to get the most performance out of it will probably be downloading the latest drivers as soon as they come out.

Downloading a installing a single package is a pain? I've never heard anyone say that needing to install a framework is "stupid". I explain to them that it means that we can have better software made quicker, and they all go "Oh! That's a good thing then. Let's install it."

Not stupid. Useless. Propose for download the same program: one autonomous (?) version and one under .NET. You'll see what is the most downloaded.

You quote me but you didn't read what I wrote. I said .NET was useful for programmers but that users won't install it unless they must to benefit from the programs they want. Otherway they don't download it since it's bloat (and this is partially true). And that's exactly what your exemple is showing.

About drivers. Tell me the Catalyst Control center is bringing performance increase? lol (and now Nvidia is following the "exemple") But maybe you won't agree with that just because it is written in .NET?

I deal with a lot of "average joe" computer users, and not one has ever complained about the size of the JRE or .NET frameworks.

So do I. And they probably don't have as much money as yours because they care about space.

And by the way, speed over space for antivirus? Don't tell me the blockbuster security suites are so big because they're fast...

If you mean me saying people without basic rudimentary programming knowledge shouldn't bash things they don't understand at all (same on other topics), then sure, you can say "I'm looking up on them".

That's the elitist behavior I was talking about. Why democracy since there are experts who know better?

And since you presume eveybody who dislikes .NET doens't have basic rudimentary programming knowledge, then you can look up on everyone. Ok. Makes sense.

I'm sure you think Vista brings really amazing functionnalities that justify all this waste of space...

Absolutely! Without any doubt at all.

If you believe Vista (the next plague OS really) is a great achievement then the discussion should stop.

I won't turn this thread in a Vista discussion since they're no way we can agree on that and the Vista debate got closed...

[CoffeeFiend]

I said .NET was useful for programmers but that users won't install it unless they must to benefit from the programs they want. Otherway they don't download it since it's bloat (and this is partially true).

So something is useless for people, unless they have a use for it (apps that require it)? So all OSes are really just pure bloat, unless someone must to benefit from running the programs they want.

Cars aren't stupid, they're useless. They're just driveway clutter, unless you want to go places... Your friends must be rich and be able to afford that much more driveway space, because here everybody complains about the driveway clutter.

That's the elitist behavior I was talking about. Why democracy since there are experts who know better?

I love your absolute lack of logic about any way I try to put this. Experts make for a RELEVANT discussion (unlike the one we're having right now). Uneducated n00bs just don't make for an insightful debate. And somehow, this just turned into commies or something. Go logic!

And since you presume eveybody who dislikes .NET doens't have basic rudimentary programming knowledge, then you can look up on everyone.

Ah, still in absolute lack of logic mode eh? This isn't at all about me commenting, but rather about uninformed n00bs NOT commenting (on any subject really). Yet, my obvious point got changed into "haters should shutup" when you read it? And somehow, that makes one person (for stating the obvious) now an elitist. Logic 101...

This was about having an insightful and intelligent debate/discussion, between folks who at least have rudimentary/basic knowledge of the subject at hand (communism, it seems). A group of experts in global economy not listening to the opinions of all the n00bs saying "they're stealing our jobs!" makes every single one of them absolute elitists and arrogant pricks too (and communist ones at that), who look down on every single individual out there.

Somehow it wasn't all that hard to figure out you must've been a Vista (the best OS ever) basher too. You keep enjoying your computer stone age forever...

Edited December 22, 2006 by crahak

[glocK_94]

So something is useless for people, unless they have a use for it (apps that require it)? So all OSes are really just pure bloat, unless someone must to benefit from running the programs they want.

Did you just realize that? Why do you thing so few people run linux?

Cars aren't stupid, they're useless. They're just driveway clutter, unless you want to go places... Your friends must be rich and be able to afford that much more driveway space, because here everybody complains about the driveway clutter.

Yeah. That was...interesting.

Experts make for a relevant discussion (unlike the one we're having right now). Uneducated n00bs just don't make for an insightful debate. And somehow, this just turned into commies or something. Go logic!

I'm logic. You're just not listening. I'm not saying people should troll debates. But the fact is everybody can have an opinion as long as they have arguments (democracy). And you're suggesting only experts can have one (well only you actually since nobody else except jcarle has the "required level" -check the thread-).

Besides it's a known fact that most people at MSFN are absolute n00bs like you said.

This was about having an insightful and intelligent debate/discussion, between folks who at least have rudimentary/basic knowledge of the subject at hand. A group of experts in global economy not listening to the opinions of all the n00bs saying "they're stealing our jobs!" makes every single one of them absolute elitists and arrogant pricks too, who look down on every single individual out there.

You're doing it again...

(by the way, it must be my english but I didn't get the communist part)

You keep enjoying your computer stone age forever...

Don't get agressive.

Somehow it wasn't all that hard to figure out you must've been a Vista (the best OS ever) basher too.

Same way it was easy for me to figure you love Vista.

Before: XP's the best thing. It's just great.

Vista's coming: XP was so bad I don't know how we lived with that. Vista rulez !

Newer = better! Bloat doesn't exist. All programs are so good and efficient. Why do people stick with older versions? Because they're n00bs.

Anyway. No point talking with you really since you've got the absolute truth... Check the thread really. Quite "funny".

Edited December 22, 2006 by glocK_94

[CoffeeFiend]

Did you just realize that? Why do you thing so few people run linux?

All OSes != linux. If I just realized all OSes are by someone else's standards ALL bloat? Yes.

Yeah. That was...interesting.

...much like your post with an identical logic.

But the fact is everybody can have an opinion as long as they have arguments (democracy).

You lookup "democracy" - it has NOTHING to do with arguments or the lack of them. Yes, people can have opinions, but they can often be misguided, uninformed, and sometimes just plain wrong, so not always useful nor insightful.

And you're suggesting only experts can have one

No, I haven't. Nowhere. Ever. You're the one suggesting things here.

well only you actually since nobody else except jcarle has the "required level"

Uhmmm. No. I've fought against the massive misinformation, constant FUD and repeated "attacks" from exactly ONE person, until you joined in. I haven't really argued or anything against anyone else so far (be it jcarle, zxian, cyberjoe2, Tarun...)

Besides it's a known fact that most people at MSFN are absolute n00bs

If you say so! (I didn't say that, and never directly reffered to members of any specific forum anywhere - let alone about any specific topic) n00bs about programming for the most part? Very likely. But then again, it's the same thing about most other topics (global economy, EE, bioengineering, etc), and I certainly fall into that said n00b group for most of those topics too, and my input would be rather worthless in many of these cases as well.

You're doing it again...

Well, that's EXACTLY how you think!

by the way, it must be my english but I didn't get the communist part

You claim it's not a democracy ("Why democracy since there are experts who know better?")...

Same way it was easy for me to figure you love Vista.

Mind you I don't even run Vista. (just check to see how active I am in those Vista threads, you'll see)

No point talking with you really since you've got the absolute truth... Check the thread really. Quite "funny".

Coming from someone saying "don't get agressive"? Quite "funny".

When I check the thread, what I see before you started posting was objective, on-topic discussion/debate without any flaming. Check the thread really.

[jcarle]

glocK_94: All I've seen you do so far is rant and rave without any solid evidence or facts to support anything you've said. Most of what you've said is your own personal opinion without anyone or anything to support it. Most of what you've said is wrong, misguided and a plain old waste of time.

The .NET framework, which you claim no one installs, has a very very high adoption rate amongst people running Windows. So much so, that 3rd party frameworks have been in development to allow .NET applications to run on other platforms such as Linux, Solaris and Mac OS.

Anyone who plays games on a Windows platform has DirectX installed. Do game users whine and complain because they have to install or update DirectX to be able to play the game they want to play? Nope. Anyone who is going to want to keep using Windows in the future is going to have no choice to install the .NET framework to be able to run applications in the future. The last few members of the small pointless resistance against the .NET framework, such as yourself, will eventually forget all about the .NET framework just like people have about DirectX.

By the way, the .NET framework takes less time to download and install then it does to update a machine to service pack 2. Oh and unless you have a pirated copy of Windows XP, I don't know anyone who hasn't updated to service pack 2. But lest we forget, people whined and complained about that too.

At the beginning of this discussion, I wouldn't have classified you as an id***, now I do. Why? Because of your pointless arguing, you're closed-mindedness and your refusal to accept that there are other opinions that count other then yours. Oh and don't forget, you still haven't brought a single valid point to this discussion. And yes, you're not as knowledged as myself, crahak or even LLXX. You're an average user who simply doesn't have the understanding of the topic at hand. At least LLXX, even if we agree to disagree with her, has an understanding of what programming really involves.

Out of the thousands of MSFN users, very very few are actual well versed programmers. It's clearly visible when a straight forward programming question is posted in the programming sub-forum and no one can come up with an answer. Are MSFN users idiots? Hell no, but they're still not programmers. Just like I'm not a doctor, or a biologist, or anything else I'm not.

As for the .NET framework being bloat? You obviously don't understand the benefits that it brings to counter just that. If you had any programming knowledge whatsoever, you would have already seen the advantages without having had to do much research. The .NET framework uses the same approach as programmers have done for years with modules, DLLs, and global functions. Seperating repeatable code into a globally available resource to be re-used from application to application. This time, the advantage comes one step further as it doesn't have to be included within each of the executables, it's globally available within the framework. So if the .NET framework is bloat, then so is DirectX and OpenGL, hell even the Win32 API is bloat by your standards.

What the hell are you doing using Windows at all?

[LLXX]

Absolutely, toally wrong - all of it! That's not the purpose of SSE and other instruction sets AT ALL! Binary size is a non-issue here, and replacing a few instructions with a couple less here and there won't make much of a change. And since data has to be properly aligned and such, it will usually result in a larger binary (but then again, who cares? it runs faster!)

The point of it is to manipulate more data at once (in parallel) to make program execution MUCH faster. You won't find "to reduce executable size" in any docs about SSE or anywhere like that, because it wasn't the purpose of it whatsoever. In fact, you'll find lots of technical papers, books and such talking about how MMX/SSE/whatever actually increases it somewhat. A quick compile of most [not necessarily all] code with the right options should prove that easily.

O RLY?

Manipulating a lot of data with one instruction vs doing the same with repeated instructions, one for each datum, does not decrease the overall size of the code? What takes more space,

add [di] y2
add [di+1] y2
add [di+2] y2
...
add [di+6] y 2
add [di+7] y 2

Or

movq mm0 [.pat2]
paddb mm0 [di]
movq [di] mm0
...
.pat2 ////h0202020202020202

The former is 31 bytes, while the latter is only 21 bytes. Both perform the same task, i.e. add 2 to a sequence of 8 bytes without looping. The latter is several times faster too.

Also, it takes CPU cycles to fetch instructions too, whether they be from the cache or the main RAM.

How do you define the "efficiency" of a compiled program?

Efficiency is directly proportional to the speed and inversely proportional to the size.

I've never seen anything of the sort come out of any of my courses that I've taken

Many formal computer science courses don't really spend much depth going into discussions on software efficiency, because [1] they are reluctant to admit that software efficiency has decreased with time, [2] the amount of material that is written on efficiency is relatively sparse, and [3] they don't want to get into heated debates such as the one right here, that often begin to degenerate

BTW, I'm still surprised why there isn't a .NETlite since there's already nLite.