Bloat and Retrofuturism

  • By Martijn Faassen
  •  • 
  • 2024-05-26
  •  • 
  • Tags: 
  • programming

Everything is so bloated

Developers like to complain about bloated applications taking too many computer resources.

Back in the olden days programmers could do amazing things with kilobytes on extremely limited CPUs. It's true!

I too have these thoughts on occasions. What is huge and sluggish always changes and stretches upward. The joke was, long ago, that Emacs was an acronym for Eight Megabytes and Constantly Swapping as 8 megabytes is too big for main memory and would force the use of the swap partition on the hard disks. Now we think 8 megabytes is tiny.

Computers have gotten incredibly powerful. They have many thousands of times more computing resources than back in the day.

Applications today indeed often do a lot more than applications back in the day, but thousands of times more, probably not!

Code is a lot easier to write than back in the day, but thousands of times easier, probably not!

We have squandered a lot of those resources.

Software getting slower more rapidly than hardware is becoming faster has been observed for a long time. It even has a law named after it, Wirth's Law

It's our fault

Related to this is that modern software uses too many layers - it's too far from the metal. And related too is that software uses too many dependencies: "my node_modules is 100 gigs". Our software has grown gigantic because we pile layers upon layers.

Layers and dependencies bring us a lot of benefits. They allow use to reuse someone else's hard work without having to reimplement it. They allow us abstraction from hardware concerns, so our software is more multi-platform.

It allows our applications to do more than they did in the past. But not, usually, thousands of times more.

There's a big caveat. Some of our modern applications can scale to massive quantities of data while those applications in the olden days could not.

But still.

We complain these things are bad, yet we keep doing it. We keep creating more software like this. We keep using software like this. How bad do we really think it is, then?

And let's not just blame management here. The evil management, so convenient. Too easy.

It's us. We do it.

What are the problems?

What are the actual underlying problems? and economic and environmental wastefulness, and excessive and accidental underlying complexity. There is also a more aesthetic concern: good, efficient design can be beautiful. Let's discuss these topics in a bit more detail.


Wastefulness is our software taking more resources than is necessary. It wastes computing resources and energy.

To reduce wastefulness, we can use better algorithms and more efficient languages. For organizations at a certain scale this becomes a real economic problem, and people invest effort in this already. So I think this is at least partially in hand as it aligns with a lot of interests.

But it's conceivable that a dramatically simpler stack could lead to far more efficiency. I don't know whether that's true. It's worth exploring, however.


Why is excessive complexity a problem? Besides the wastefulness aspects, there are educational issues, and issues of expertise.

Educationally, it makes sense to deal with a simpler system. But we can create simplified educational sandboxes easily enough already. So while it could certainly be beneficial if we could use production software in education about software, it's not a huge problem overall.

It would be nice to be an expert on a larger part of a simpler stack, but I am not sure this is a pressing concern. For all their flaws many of these layers of abstraction are actually working fairly well for us!

It could be a pressing concern in one way however: software security. If we don't understand all the layers, we may more leave serious security flaws in the system. In general, more layers, more security risks. A simpler stack could reduce the risks here quite a bit.


That leaves aesthetic concerns. I don't want to dismiss this; happiness matters, plus our aethestic feelings about complexity gives us the strong suggestion real improvements are possible. But it's also the one least important in most real world contexts. The forces at work are mostly passion projects and hobbies. Code as art. I love this exploration myself.

How should we feel?

Should we feel guilty about this situation of excessive bloat? Not too much. Perhaps a little. I only feel a little bit guilty for this situation myself. I'm only playing a small part and there are a lot of forces around me.

I am not that interested in just complaining. It makes sense to use the bountiful resources we have anyway to make your program just a little bit easier to write. Complaining seems a bit too easy; you get to feel a bit superior, perhaps?

How to fix this?

What if we were serious about reducing complexity in real world software? Throwing out layers on an individual basis won't work. It's difficult to do and these layers are adopted because there are real forces that makes their adoption seem worthwhile.

Instead, we would need to carefully analyze layers and either somehow simply a layer significantly internally, or try to replace multiple layers with a single simpler one that offers the same services, or at least the subset in use. Moreover, we need to do this incrementally, and lots people need to buy into it to have a real world effect.

Software environmentalism

Reducing layers in real software is hard, the benefits are indirect. Lots of people and organizations would have to work together to have a real impact.

This is starting to sound like an environmental problem.

It may be that at the moment the environmental problem of software complexity isn't big enough to hurt us much. Or maybe we haven't really noticed it, and it's there already. How much money is lost through security flaws, for instance?

It's conceivable that at some point it hurts so much we actually start to notice. Security is one area. Energy use is also an increasing concern.

Awareness of the costs of software bloat and complexity is a good place to start, but individual awareness is not enough with an environmental problem. Reducing complexity in software might require a society scale effort to solve.


Recently I read an interesting discussion about Oberon, a fascinating project led by Wirth to simplify the software stack back in the 1980. Oberon was ambitious: programming language, operating system, GUI, even CPU were all in scope.

In that discussion, made the following fascinating observation:

I read a while ago that perhaps the reason retrocomputing has taken off so much in recent years is that it takes us back to a more innocent time, when we could all still imagine computing as personal empowerment rather than bleak people-farming, dehumanization and surveillance feudalism.

But perhaps what we should be thinking about is less retrocomputing and more retrofuturistic computing. What would a 2024 Oberon successor be like?

Let's think about topics like this more often. Just for fun if nothing else.

One retrofuturism topic I like to ponder about is whether you can have a modern programming language with advanced features like static typing but implemented in a simpler way. Is that even possible? What is essential complexity and what is not? Could we give up features in a programming language to accomplish this?

There are many retrofuturism topics. Let's imagine alternatives!


I will end my musings on software complexity for now. For me the interest is mostly aesthetic, but my environmental sensibilities, both physical and complexity, are slowly starting to wake up.

What do you think? Should be become software environmentalists? Should we imagine alternative versions of the present more often, roads not taken?