4 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoOkay. 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.