I'm at the tail end of my career, so working on efficiency gains like this doesn't usually add up for me.
However I was interested in knowing whether it does for the author.
Assuming he/she does suffer this 1300 ms delay "hundreds" of times a day (let's say 200) and for the sake of argument they use their computer 300 days a year and have 20 years of such work ahead of them with this config, then this inefficiency will total 1300 x 200 x 300 x 20 / 1000 / 60 / 60 hours wasted during author's lifetime - some 430 hours.
I had a printout of [1] at my office.
Of course at is base it is only a simple multiplication table, but nevertheless is reminded me several time that a issue is worth fixing.
Comments
I'm at the tail end of my career, so working on efficiency gains like this doesn't usually add up for me.
However I was interested in knowing whether it does for the author.
Assuming he/she does suffer this 1300 ms delay "hundreds" of times a day (let's say 200) and for the sake of argument they use their computer 300 days a year and have 20 years of such work ahead of them with this config, then this inefficiency will total 1300 x 200 x 300 x 20 / 1000 / 60 / 60 hours wasted during author's lifetime - some 430 hours.
So well worth the effort to fix!
I find that annoyances cost me much more than the wall-clock time of the delay. You're lucky to disagree :)
I had a printout of [1] at my office. Of course at is base it is only a simple multiplication table, but nevertheless is reminded me several time that a issue is worth fixing.
[1] https://xkcd.com/1205/