3 ms·
you realize that you are literally parroting talking points that we have already predicted you would come up with as additional excuses, right?
by AbsoluteCabbage 3y ago
you realize that you are literally parroting talking points that we have already predicted you would come up with as additional excuses, right?
- ftxbro 3y agoI mean I'm not parroting anything, but OK I will also agree that this isn't an especially mind blowing point that I was making. Probably a lot of other people would make that same point too!
- yonixw 3y agoHe didn't refute "start faster, refactor later" at all, with any of his examples. So him saying he did, does not matter. "Evidence" as he says, is needed.
- matiasfernandez 3y ago“For example, one argument would be that the evidence I’ve presented here is consistent with a strategy of quickly shipping “version one” with poor performance, then starting work on a high-performance “version two” to replace it. That would be completely consistent with the evidence we see. But even if that turns out to be true, it still means programmers have to care about performance! It just means they need to learn two modes of programming: “throw-away”, and “performant”. There would still be no excuse for dismissing performance as a critical skill, because you always know the throw-away version has to be replaced with a more performant version in short order. That kind of argument is great. We should have it. What we should not have are excuses — claims there is no argument to be had, and that performance somehow won’t matter anywhere in a product lifecycle, so developers simply don’t have to learn about it.”