> The tragedy of the design of computer programs is that we have no theory of efficiency, no theory of what is most optimal Yeah, that's just fundamental law w

> The tragedy of the design of computer programs is that we have no theory of efficiency, no theory of what is most optimal Yeah, that's just fundamental law we have to accept. I believe the reason we don't have a theory of efficiency is not because it's hard to measure. Efficiency is inherently a human concept, not a mathematical one. We will simply never agree on it's definition, so we'll never have a theory. The good thing, however, is while we can't agree on how to measure efficiency, we can agree how to measure the outcomes of it. Efficiency leads to success, and our definitions of success are way more aligned (and more mathematical). If we accept that theory is impossible, empirical evidence is as good as it gets. For example, I'm not a fan of Ruby, but it contributes (or at least used to) to more than 50% of YC startups value, while not being a very popular language overall. Whether I personally like it or not, this is hard evidence that there's something about Ruby that correlates with success. Something I probably don't understand. Something even Ruby developers probably don't understand. Unless I have a plausible theory explaining why there's absolutely no causation, it's undeniably there. Of course, we don't have empirical evidence on bleeding edge tech. And that's why "choose boring technology" is a thing.