> Most of the code we wrote was fast enough (<2ms) that making it faster wouldn’t be noticeable, so it would definitely be a waste of time to optimize. Making code that’s 0.1% of your runtime 100x faster only makes your latency <1% lower.
I read the post in the second link before writing my original reply, because I don't like jumping into a discussion without making sure I understand what's going on ;)
I get that your intention was the same as Knuth's. And yes, I agree that @abraae took your advice out of context. That was, I believe, his point and it's certainly mine.
Specifically, when you look at that numbered list describing your code-writing practices, the numbers 1 and 3 stand out as hyperbolic. People will* take that stuff out of context and pass it around. Hell, people are already having a hard time staying reasonable in this very discussion thread.
I can't speak for anyone else, but don't take my comments personally. You guys made your own product and ran with it, which is more than I can say for myself, and I respect you for that. I also agree with what you're trying to say. However, I stand by my criticism of the hyperbole, because I've seen people who take that stuff too literally and proceed to write crap.
Yeah it's not super clear, but that list isn't of independent points: it's the steps we used to ensure a new feature is good code. "ignore performance" is explicitly step 3 of 5, where step 5 is "then you optimize"
See https://medium.com/@jaredpochtar/on-performance-and-software... and the full section on https://medium.com/@gabriel_20625/technical-lessons-from-bui...
I read the post in the second link before writing my original reply, because I don't like jumping into a discussion without making sure I understand what's going on ;)
I get that your intention was the same as Knuth's. And yes, I agree that @abraae took your advice out of context. That was, I believe, his point and it's certainly mine.
Specifically, when you look at that numbered list describing your code-writing practices, the numbers 1 and 3 stand out as hyperbolic. People will* take that stuff out of context and pass it around. Hell, people are already having a hard time staying reasonable in this very discussion thread.
I can't speak for anyone else, but don't take my comments personally. You guys made your own product and ran with it, which is more than I can say for myself, and I respect you for that. I also agree with what you're trying to say. However, I stand by my criticism of the hyperbole, because I've seen people who take that stuff too literally and proceed to write crap.