3 ms·

It's not about performance, at least not 95th percentile performance, by far. It's almost never about that, and it's not what I was talking about. I'm totally f

It's not about performance, at least not 95th percentile performance, by far. It's almost never about that, and it's not what I was talking about. I'm totally fine with less than 20% almost always, and often performance just doesn't matter at all (as you say). But - if an architecture is wrong, sometimes the best you can get without rewriting everything could be like 1%. Maybe the requirements can simply not be fulfilled this way. In any case, my comment was mostly about the development process. I don't want to start a heated discussion (I've started too many of them in the past) so all I will say is what I care about is control, in multiple ways.

marcosdumay 8y ago
Looks like I misunderstood your comment (but it is sometimes about performance, there are people on that performance above everything world). Yes, you are going into it wrong. What I can see on that comment is that: - You expected to write a "mostly pure" program in a pure language. It won't let you do that, you will write a pure program. You also do not need to be careful in doing it. The most obvious thing you get on a strict language is carelessly - you don't have to care about things that the language does not allow. You focus on (re)writing your program. - As a consequence of the first point, the more strict (on anything, including mutability) a language is, the easier it is to change old code, because you can assume a lot of stuff about it, and because you care less about making mistakes. - Specifically about mutability, it does not take any control away. Mutable values are exactly as expressive as immutable ones. You can have mutability semantics on an immutable language, and most try to make it as near a first class syntax as possible, but the one change is that you will have to make it explicit, one way or another.

marcosdumay 8y ago

Looks like I misunderstood your comment (but it is sometimes about performance, there are people on that performance above everything world). Yes, you are going into it wrong. What I can see on that comment is that: - You expected to write a "mostly pure" program in a pure language. It won't let you do that, you will write a pure program. You also do not need to be careful in doing it. The most obvious thing you get on a strict language is carelessly - you don't have to care about things that the language does not allow. You focus on (re)writing your program. - As a consequence of the first point, the more strict (on anything, including mutability) a language is, the easier it is to change old code, because you can assume a lot of stuff about it, and because you care less about making mistakes. - Specifically about mutability, it does not take any control away. Mutable values are exactly as expressive as immutable ones. You can have mutability semantics on an immutable language, and most try to make it as near a first class syntax as possible, but the one change is that you will have to make it explicit, one way or another.