4 ms·

> Unless it turns out the sorting routine has a significant impact on the overall performance, I wouldn't care a bit if it used Bubblesort, Quicksort or Bogosor

by nknight 15y ago

> Unless it turns out the sorting routine has a significant impact on the overall performance, I wouldn't care a bit if it used Bubblesort, Quicksort or Bogosort. By your evident logic, then, Bogosort is the right default choice, because anything else is premature optimization. > Yes. So? How many people are running large enough Jabber servers that this is a problem for them? Well, the person I originally replied to appears to have been one of them. As are Google, Microsoft, AOL, Facebook, and Yahoo. I know one much smaller company I can't name who did field trials of XMPP on their embedded consumer device and promptly dropped the project. Had I made the mistake of trying the same thing, I would now be in such a position. > And why can't they simply buy another CPU? And the server to put it in, and the space, and the power, and the cooling. I might be able to get a chip delivered for $200, but it's going to cost me another $400-800 plus people time to put it into service, and another $500+/year to run it. Far cheaper to make the engineer spend a day or two to come up with something reasonable.

morsch 15y ago
> By your evident logic, then, Bogosort is the right default choice, because anything else is premature optimization. How does that follow from my logic? What I said was: I don't care about implementation details unless it turns out to be relevant. If I spent 99% of my time waiting for IO, and 1% on sorting, then yeah, the sort routine could be Bogosort for all I care, since the potential gains are tiny. The right default choice for sorting is your standard library's sort routine. If you use that and sorting still takes a long time, then you can worry about what goes on in there and if it's worth replacing it. > As are Google, Microsoft, AOL, Facebook, and Yahoo. All of which now use XMPP despite the overhead.
- nknight 15y ago
  > I don't care about implementation details unless it turns out to be relevant. Then you are reckless. It is both possible and desirable to anticipate obvious problems in a design and avoid them before they present themselves operationally. > The right default choice for sorting is your standard library's sort routine. Smarter people than you or I decided what the standard library's sort routine would be, and did so with careful consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of their choice. Here we are speaking of the design of a protocol from scratch, and/or the explicit choice of a protocol for a given set of requirements. It is your duty to do as the standard library author did, and pay careful consideration to the implications of your design, as it will impact your business for years to come. > All of which now use XMPP despite the overhead. They have an interoperability requirement. Did you miss that detail of my earlier comment?
  - morsch 15y ago
    Okay. I agree. But carefully considering your options and paying mind to your requirements is a far fetch from flat out disregaring one option simply because of a detail -- overhead -- that may or may not be relevant in your situation. I still think you could refer to this as a kind of premature optimisation, although I see now that this was unhelpful, because it brought up the whole sorting thing which was kind of a tangent. > They have an interoperability requirement. Did you miss that detail of my earlier comment? Some of them do. Some of them explicitly turn off interoperability and still go with XMPP; Whatsapp (no affil) is another one of those. This just stresses the fact that efficiency/overhead is not the only consideration when it comes to protocol choice, and pretty far down the line when it comes to IM protocols.

by nknight 15y ago

morsch 15y ago

> By your evident logic, then, Bogosort is the right default choice, because anything else is premature optimization. How does that follow from my logic? What I said was: I don't care about implementation details unless it turns out to be relevant. If I spent 99% of my time waiting for IO, and 1% on sorting, then yeah, the sort routine could be Bogosort for all I care, since the potential gains are tiny. The right default choice for sorting is your standard library's sort routine. If you use that and sorting still takes a long time, then you can worry about what goes on in there and if it's worth replacing it. > As are Google, Microsoft, AOL, Facebook, and Yahoo. All of which now use XMPP despite the overhead.

nknight 15y ago
> I don't care about implementation details unless it turns out to be relevant. Then you are reckless. It is both possible and desirable to anticipate obvious problems in a design and avoid them before they present themselves operationally. > The right default choice for sorting is your standard library's sort routine. Smarter people than you or I decided what the standard library's sort routine would be, and did so with careful consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of their choice. Here we are speaking of the design of a protocol from scratch, and/or the explicit choice of a protocol for a given set of requirements. It is your duty to do as the standard library author did, and pay careful consideration to the implications of your design, as it will impact your business for years to come. > All of which now use XMPP despite the overhead. They have an interoperability requirement. Did you miss that detail of my earlier comment?
- morsch 15y ago
  Okay. I agree. But carefully considering your options and paying mind to your requirements is a far fetch from flat out disregaring one option simply because of a detail -- overhead -- that may or may not be relevant in your situation. I still think you could refer to this as a kind of premature optimisation, although I see now that this was unhelpful, because it brought up the whole sorting thing which was kind of a tangent. > They have an interoperability requirement. Did you miss that detail of my earlier comment? Some of them do. Some of them explicitly turn off interoperability and still go with XMPP; Whatsapp (no affil) is another one of those. This just stresses the fact that efficiency/overhead is not the only consideration when it comes to protocol choice, and pretty far down the line when it comes to IM protocols.