3 ms·

>you are fucking SKILLED at dodging questions and changing the topic to suit your own needs. you would fail out of a debate class in the first week, though. Lo

>you are fucking SKILLED at dodging questions and changing the topic to suit your own needs. you would fail out of a debate class in the first week, though. Look, you're trying to argue that javascript dev jobs should have this kind of knowledge on their descriptions and I'm arguing there's way more shit to worry about and this is near the bottom level of things javascript devs should know. That's why I opened with "don't increase these job requirements unnecessarily" >Is there any software that you write whose users would not be made happier if the software performed better? Any at all? Yeah, a lot of websites. It just doesn't matter after a certain point. From 10 seconds to 1 seconds? Definitely happier. From 1 second to 0.1 seconds? Happier, but not as much as the first gain. 0.1 to 0.01 or further? They might not even notice it. And this is where the network makes further gains cost ineffective. Take my arguments to C or assembly land with systems programming and I immediately lose on most fronts. Especially if you can translate fractions of a second into more money, there should be no restrictions on how much performance to go after IF speed == money. But if you're doing systems programming with javascript and want the utmost performance, this just looks silly for both of us. >This is one of those things that everyone "knows" but is actually not true. You and kasey_junk have different/better experience than I do, because those questions come up way more often in javascript jobs than what you're promoting.

gpderetta 7y ago
> 0.1 to 0.01 or further? They might not even notice it. And this is where the network makes further gains cost ineffective. true. Of course the vast majority of web sites are nowhere near this point, not even to the 10 to 1 seconds.
- naikrovek 7y ago
  Right, and moving from 0.1 seconds to 0.01 seconds means you can use one TENTH of the CPU time or Lambda time or whatever, so you can do more with fewer resources or scale down your infrastructure. Performance matters, a LOT, and not just to end users; if you perform better, you save money on infrastructure.

gpderetta 7y ago

> 0.1 to 0.01 or further? They might not even notice it. And this is where the network makes further gains cost ineffective. true. Of course the vast majority of web sites are nowhere near this point, not even to the 10 to 1 seconds.

naikrovek 7y ago
Right, and moving from 0.1 seconds to 0.01 seconds means you can use one TENTH of the CPU time or Lambda time or whatever, so you can do more with fewer resources or scale down your infrastructure. Performance matters, a LOT, and not just to end users; if you perform better, you save money on infrastructure.