3 ms·

Maybe I'm daft, but I don't quite understand what your getting at.

throwaway2048 10y ago
translated: We dont care if our software runs like crap for you because our time is more important than your user experience.
- nhumrich 10y ago
  I think your misunderstanding the tone of the article. I mention how the bottleneck is usually not the language. It IS important to optimize, but its important to understand where the real issue is. I later explain that things have to be only "good enough". And I also explain how you CAN optimize python when it IS to slow for your users.
  - khedoros1 10y ago
    From their viewpoint: The biggest cost for the company that implements something is their employees' time, and that's likely true of your customers, as well. Your costs are easily measured by you; the customers' costs aren't. Reading the article, it's a little grating that their costs aren't given the same weight as yours. From your viewpoint: You've got a large constant X (representing time taken doing something un-optimizable like I/O), a small constant Y (representing the "language multiplier"), and a small constant Z (representing CPU-heavy work). So you've got something like Time=N(X+Y*Z), which for values of Y and Z in your work, means that X is by far the largest timesink. From my viewpoint: You're talking past each other, imagining different constants. It's also interesting to me that a program is still considered written in "Python" if the interesting parts are actually in C, and called from Python. You make points that I agree with about premature optimization, but I think the way you wrote your article opens it to easy misinterpretation, since everyone will view it through their workloads (which may vary strongly from yours). I would've limited the discussion explicitly to the kinds of use-cases you're thinking of.
- Paul-ish 10y ago
  Maybe this is saying the same thing, but I interpreted it as "If a handful of developers write an application that millions use, then saving a few seconds per user can add up." I've seen this applied to the Linux kernel, where saving a few microseconds in a system call, when multiplied out to the billions of machines running Linux, saves hundreds of years of CPU time. With that said, most services don't have as many users as Linux.
- qbrass 10y ago
  It runs like crap, but still saved an hour a day over doing it by hand. Does the fast version save you more time than it cost by not being available?
lawnchair_larry 10y ago
https://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/your.html https://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/your.html

throwaway2048 10y ago

translated: We dont care if our software runs like crap for you because our time is more important than your user experience.

nhumrich 10y ago
I think your misunderstanding the tone of the article. I mention how the bottleneck is usually not the language. It IS important to optimize, but its important to understand where the real issue is. I later explain that things have to be only "good enough". And I also explain how you CAN optimize python when it IS to slow for your users.
- khedoros1 10y ago
  From their viewpoint: The biggest cost for the company that implements something is their employees' time, and that's likely true of your customers, as well. Your costs are easily measured by you; the customers' costs aren't. Reading the article, it's a little grating that their costs aren't given the same weight as yours. From your viewpoint: You've got a large constant X (representing time taken doing something un-optimizable like I/O), a small constant Y (representing the "language multiplier"), and a small constant Z (representing CPU-heavy work). So you've got something like Time=N(X+Y*Z), which for values of Y and Z in your work, means that X is by far the largest timesink. From my viewpoint: You're talking past each other, imagining different constants. It's also interesting to me that a program is still considered written in "Python" if the interesting parts are actually in C, and called from Python. You make points that I agree with about premature optimization, but I think the way you wrote your article opens it to easy misinterpretation, since everyone will view it through their workloads (which may vary strongly from yours). I would've limited the discussion explicitly to the kinds of use-cases you're thinking of.
Paul-ish 10y ago
Maybe this is saying the same thing, but I interpreted it as "If a handful of developers write an application that millions use, then saving a few seconds per user can add up." I've seen this applied to the Linux kernel, where saving a few microseconds in a system call, when multiplied out to the billions of machines running Linux, saves hundreds of years of CPU time. With that said, most services don't have as many users as Linux.
qbrass 10y ago
It runs like crap, but still saved an hour a day over doing it by hand. Does the fast version save you more time than it cost by not being available?

lawnchair_larry 10y ago

https://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/your.html https://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/your.html