4 ms·

Performant is not an adjective, it is a noun. "One who performs". Software can perform poor or well. Performant does not mean it performs well. http://weblogs.

by foxhop 10y ago

Performant is not an adjective, it is a noun. "One who performs". Software can perform poor or well. Performant does not mean it performs well. http://weblogs.asp.net/jongalloway/performant-isn-t-a-word http://weblogs.asp.net/jongalloway/performant-isn-t-a-word This matters. Software can perform well at its job (not crash, get the correct answer) but may not perform efficiently (takes a long time, has unbounded resource use, uses a brute force pattern).

lucozade 10y ago
Unless it's being used an an adjective, in which case it's an adjective.
ulber 10y ago
If you subscribe to descriptive linguistics at all (which you must if you believe languages can naturally change) a quick google search reveals that performant is actually very much an adjective (i.e. it is commonly used as one to the point that one would be considered obtuse to refuse to recognize it as such). To be fair one can also find a fair number of discussions about whether performant is a word in that google search, so "performant as an adjective" is clearly a newish use of the word. Edit: after reading your reference I can comment that journal/book editors mostly do not subscribe to descriptive linguistics and it is probably good that they do not (to not take chances with parts of language that might turn out to be fads).
- gsnedders 10y ago
  There are plenty of published journals going back decades that accept performant as a term of art.
- adrianratnapala 10y ago
  Your edit is a good pont. The prescriptive/descriptive dichotomy always seems a bit odd. If you are a linguist: i.e a social scientist who job it is to explain how languages work in this world. Then you must describe. If you are a language teacher then your job is to prescribe. And you make a good point that journal editors have good reasons to do the same. (Especially when looking after authors from STEM fields!)
rubidium 10y ago
http://xkcd.com/1735/ http://xkcd.com/1735/
- aslammuet 10y ago
  This is in fact not a discussion about the semantics of performant.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    It was made into one.
  - ryandrake 10y ago
    By using "performant" in the title (which is known to set off the language nazis), the author is practically begging for the discussion to devolve into this tangent. It's imprecise: What is it even supposed to mean? Because it's a made-up word, who knows for sure? Does it mean "better performing?" If so, why not just say that? It's not that many more keystrokes. Better performing in what way? CPU? Resource utilization? Say so. You've put a lot of thought and effort into writing something, why blow it by using an imprecise pseudo-word? The author is undermining his own credibility, telling us "I don't care enough about the topic to even pick an actual word, let alone summarize, in more detail, what I mean to discuss."
    - c22 10y ago
      I wonder which words were not made up. The true name of God?
    - MaulingMonkey 10y ago
      All words are "imprecise" and "made-up". My understanding is that performant is totally legal French, meaning efficient or effective, with usage dating back at least 4 decades. If you're not into stealing random words from other languages, I have to question why you're into English in the first place.
- p333347 10y ago
rossitter 10y ago
> Performant is not an adjective, it is a noun. "One who performs". It has been used as a noun, but rarely. You are thinking of the -ant formation seen in informant: one who informs. But this is not the only -ant in English, and it is not the one used here. That which is resistant, resists well; it offers a good amount of resistance. Those who are insistent, insist strongly; they make plenty of insistence. That which is compliant, complies fully; it is very much in compliance. That which is performant, performs well; it offers (a) good performance. As to what good performance is: > Software can perform well at its job (not crash, get the correct answer) but may not perform efficiently (takes a long time, has unbounded resource use, uses a brute force pattern). This is a reasonable objection—I agree with it, wanting speech to be plain—but here is something to oppose it: I suspect that just about everyone who clicked on this article, including the two of us, knew precisely what the author wanted the word to mean, even if they had an objection to that use of the word. Performant has sprung to life, and it describes an efficient performance. As for what I think of the word: the English language is already rich with others which would do just as well, which is probably why this one seems so jargony. It is one of those technical words that sounds more like a social signal—"I know what I'm talking about"—than something precise: "This is what I'm talking about."
qsymmachus 10y ago
Fight the real enemy, like the word "learnings"

by foxhop 10y ago

lucozade 10y ago

Unless it's being used an an adjective, in which case it's an adjective.

ulber 10y ago

If you subscribe to descriptive linguistics at all (which you must if you believe languages can naturally change) a quick google search reveals that performant is actually very much an adjective (i.e. it is commonly used as one to the point that one would be considered obtuse to refuse to recognize it as such). To be fair one can also find a fair number of discussions about whether performant is a word in that google search, so "performant as an adjective" is clearly a newish use of the word. Edit: after reading your reference I can comment that journal/book editors mostly do not subscribe to descriptive linguistics and it is probably good that they do not (to not take chances with parts of language that might turn out to be fads).

gsnedders 10y ago
There are plenty of published journals going back decades that accept performant as a term of art.
adrianratnapala 10y ago
Your edit is a good pont. The prescriptive/descriptive dichotomy always seems a bit odd. If you are a linguist: i.e a social scientist who job it is to explain how languages work in this world. Then you must describe. If you are a language teacher then your job is to prescribe. And you make a good point that journal editors have good reasons to do the same. (Especially when looking after authors from STEM fields!)

rubidium 10y ago

http://xkcd.com/1735/ http://xkcd.com/1735/

aslammuet 10y ago
This is in fact not a discussion about the semantics of performant.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  It was made into one.
- ryandrake 10y ago
  By using "performant" in the title (which is known to set off the language nazis), the author is practically begging for the discussion to devolve into this tangent. It's imprecise: What is it even supposed to mean? Because it's a made-up word, who knows for sure? Does it mean "better performing?" If so, why not just say that? It's not that many more keystrokes. Better performing in what way? CPU? Resource utilization? Say so. You've put a lot of thought and effort into writing something, why blow it by using an imprecise pseudo-word? The author is undermining his own credibility, telling us "I don't care enough about the topic to even pick an actual word, let alone summarize, in more detail, what I mean to discuss."
  - c22 10y ago
    I wonder which words were not made up. The true name of God?
  - MaulingMonkey 10y ago
    All words are "imprecise" and "made-up". My understanding is that performant is totally legal French, meaning efficient or effective, with usage dating back at least 4 decades. If you're not into stealing random words from other languages, I have to question why you're into English in the first place.
p333347 10y ago

rossitter 10y ago

> Performant is not an adjective, it is a noun. "One who performs". It has been used as a noun, but rarely. You are thinking of the -ant formation seen in informant: one who informs. But this is not the only -ant in English, and it is not the one used here. That which is resistant, resists well; it offers a good amount of resistance. Those who are insistent, insist strongly; they make plenty of insistence. That which is compliant, complies fully; it is very much in compliance. That which is performant, performs well; it offers (a) good performance. As to what good performance is: > Software can perform well at its job (not crash, get the correct answer) but may not perform efficiently (takes a long time, has unbounded resource use, uses a brute force pattern). This is a reasonable objection—I agree with it, wanting speech to be plain—but here is something to oppose it: I suspect that just about everyone who clicked on this article, including the two of us, knew precisely what the author wanted the word to mean, even if they had an objection to that use of the word. Performant has sprung to life, and it describes an efficient performance. As for what I think of the word: the English language is already rich with others which would do just as well, which is probably why this one seems so jargony. It is one of those technical words that sounds more like a social signal—"I know what I'm talking about"—than something precise: "This is what I'm talking about."

qsymmachus 10y ago

Fight the real enemy, like the word "learnings"