4 ms·
> Cute analogy, but It's like you're dismissing the article but then everything you go on to mention as your alternative view is something the article directly
by inimino 5y ago
> Cute analogy, but
It's like you're dismissing the article but then everything you go on to mention as your alternative view is something the article directly mentions. Maybe try reading it again with an open mind?
Optionality on even making the second cup is covered under "Optimize for latency when preferences are likely to change." Of course optionality just means that you prefer having the choice, but latency is also about when you have the information to make the choice. So the article both includes and goes beyond the idea in your comment.
I'm really mystified by your dismissive tone. Have you heard of Kent Beck? He's not coming to these ideas for the first time. Why not try to engage with and build on the ideas instead?
- taeric 5y agoApologies if it sounded dismissive. It really is a cute analogy. (Where I mean that as good.) I agree he touched on optionality. I am just elevating it to a first class concept in the story. Latency and throughout are not hallowed facets. Edit: I can see how my post looks like a counterpoint. I should have framed it more that I don't think he is fully capturing the important facets of his own metaphors. If you are a city planner, transit is expensive, but can allow people to live with a lower footprint at a personal level. It is not primarily a throughput versus latency decision, but a cost option. Similarly, most people will boil however much water their kettle holds, and they picked that thinking on how many people they make coffee for.