3 ms·
I 100% agree. I could have written the same comment. The biggest way I see this is picking an architecture or programming language (cough Python) that is inher
by IshKebab 1y ago
I 100% agree. I could have written the same comment.
The biggest way I see this is picking an architecture or programming language (cough Python) that is inherently slow. "We'll worry about performance later" they say, or frequently "it's not performance critical".
Cut to two years later, you have 200k lines of Python that spends 20 minutes loading a 10GB JSON file.
- dan-robertson 1y agoI failed to put an important point on the above comment, which is spending too much time designing the perfect thing can lead to a system that is either never finished, or one that meets the goals but doesn’t do the work it was originally intended to do, and then it’s too late to pivot to doing the right thing. If you develop in an environment where you have high velocity (eg python) you can much sooner learn that you are building the wrong thing and iterate. Most systems do not have very high performance requirements. A typical python web application is not going to need to service many requests and the slow stuff it does is likely going to be waiting on responses from a database or other system. The thing to make such a program faster is to send better db queries rather than optimising the O(1 web page) work that is done in python.
- sgarland 1y agoI know this was an example, but if you get to that point and haven’t swapped out Python’s stdlib json library for orjson or some other performance-oriented library, that’s on you.
- IshKebab 1y agoThat's exactly the sort of after-the-fact performance workaround that you should avoid. Instead of using a faster JSON parser, you shouldn't have used JSON in the first place.