[eru]

And the 'fast' can be optional.

But sometimes you already have something that works, is correct and fast, but you still want to simplify: for example, when understanding _why_ that code is correct is too annoyingly complicated to explain and understand.

[tracker1]

With AMD having 128 core CPUs with a 192 core coming soon... Depending on what you're doing, and how you're doing, there's a LOT of raw horsepower you can throw at a problem. For example, a classic RDBMS (PostgreSQL, MS-SQL, etc) over more complex No/New SQL solutions.

[jorvi]

I deeply hate this modern attitude.

It’s factually correct due to hardware and compilers (néé transpilers) offering so much headroom, but part of me cries when you compare modern hardware utilization compared to how optimized-to-the-gills late generation PS2 games were.

[WhyCause]

I would argue that the fast part isn't optional for web apps (where "transpiling"), but it can be in many other instances.

I write a lot of data-pipeline code in Python that mostly runs once a day. Does it matter if it takes an hour to run instead of five minutes? Not really, as long as it's ready to go for the next run.

[joseda-hg]

It breaks the flow of the quote, but it really should be 'make it fast enough'