4 ms·

I do. Because I was asked to add a convex polygon and calculate its area. And now the shape_union must be rewritten from scratch. ... And maybe we want set-ope

I do. Because I was asked to add a convex polygon and calculate its area. And now the shape_union must be rewritten from scratch. ... And maybe we want set-operations in the future...

Tomis02 4y ago
> And now the shape_union must be rewritten from scratch. We spend most of our time reading code. If the Casey's code snippets are easier to reason about (which they are, especially as the codebase get larger), that's a big win. I'd imagine you want to optimize for code that is easy to (re)write, rather than minimize the number of key strokes while increasing the time spent understanding the code.
- rrobukef 4y ago
  I'd say that the needing rewrites is bad for the future clarity of the code. So much so that people conclude the 50% performance hit is worth it to use open polymorphism (interfaces, etc.) over closed (tagged unions, algebraic data types, etc.). So I optimize for the ability to reason about over the lifetime of the project above the current ability to reason and above performance (with exceptions). What is adding a polygon going to do? Either back to the 'bad' interface to hide variable object size, extend to a tagged union with a size of the biggest datastructure - hurting cache performance each time it grows -, or an involved Object of Arrays structure - not good for clarity but great for performance. All while having to remember which field, width or height, to use for the circles radius.
  - lll-o-lll 4y ago
    I think the problem comes from applying “clean code” as a standard pattern. As demonstrated in the example, extensibility costs in performance, and also sometimes in comprehension. If we apply the “clean code” rules as a matter of course, we pay this price always. In my opinion, we should use interfaces etc at module boundaries only.
fartsucker69 4y ago
that's a separate thing from polymorphism vs. switch case in the post that people confuse. if he simply kept the original "unoptimized" switch case method, what you say wouldn't apply. it couldn't. from a pure feature standpoint, a switch case is functionally identical to polymorphism except that you can't add types that are unknown at compile time (like loaded at runtime as an extension from a library or something). and that version is already faster. what the blog post does after that point is merely point out that by having everything in one place, you see opportunities to optimize. this is a separate thing where you still have to consider whether that actually makes sense. like, if you can guesstimate that an entirely different type is likely to enter the picture at some point, you may skip this optimization. if production realities mean that code needs to be faster, you can still apply it and add some comments about how to change it back, or just keep the original version commented out with a reference for why its there. and so on.

I do. Because I was asked to add a convex polygon and calculate its area. And now the shape_union must be rewritten from scratch. ... And maybe we want set-operations in the future...

Tomis02 4y ago

> And now the shape_union must be rewritten from scratch. We spend most of our time reading code. If the Casey's code snippets are easier to reason about (which they are, especially as the codebase get larger), that's a big win. I'd imagine you want to optimize for code that is easy to (re)write, rather than minimize the number of key strokes while increasing the time spent understanding the code.

rrobukef 4y ago
I'd say that the needing rewrites is bad for the future clarity of the code. So much so that people conclude the 50% performance hit is worth it to use open polymorphism (interfaces, etc.) over closed (tagged unions, algebraic data types, etc.). So I optimize for the ability to reason about over the lifetime of the project above the current ability to reason and above performance (with exceptions). What is adding a polygon going to do? Either back to the 'bad' interface to hide variable object size, extend to a tagged union with a size of the biggest datastructure - hurting cache performance each time it grows -, or an involved Object of Arrays structure - not good for clarity but great for performance. All while having to remember which field, width or height, to use for the circles radius.
- lll-o-lll 4y ago
  I think the problem comes from applying “clean code” as a standard pattern. As demonstrated in the example, extensibility costs in performance, and also sometimes in comprehension. If we apply the “clean code” rules as a matter of course, we pay this price always. In my opinion, we should use interfaces etc at module boundaries only.

fartsucker69 4y ago

that's a separate thing from polymorphism vs. switch case in the post that people confuse. if he simply kept the original "unoptimized" switch case method, what you say wouldn't apply. it couldn't. from a pure feature standpoint, a switch case is functionally identical to polymorphism except that you can't add types that are unknown at compile time (like loaded at runtime as an extension from a library or something). and that version is already faster. what the blog post does after that point is merely point out that by having everything in one place, you see opportunities to optimize. this is a separate thing where you still have to consider whether that actually makes sense. like, if you can guesstimate that an entirely different type is likely to enter the picture at some point, you may skip this optimization. if production realities mean that code needs to be faster, you can still apply it and add some comments about how to change it back, or just keep the original version commented out with a reference for why its there. and so on.