3 ms·
Now if only I could get everyone to stop using the word "performant." Good heavens, let's not rely on rusty old words like efficient or fast!
by Scramblejams 13y ago
Now if only I could get everyone to stop using the word "performant." Good heavens, let's not rely on rusty old words like efficient or fast!
- munificent 13y agoI dislike jargon, but in this case, neither "efficient" nor "fast" captures the same concept as "performant". First, both are open-ended and relative. "Fast" and "efficient" compared to what? A cheetah is "fast", but it's not fast if I'm trying to use them to propel fighter jets. If I say, "my code is fast", am I saying it's fast enough for the problem at hand? Faster than it was before? Fast compared to most other code that solves the same problem? "Efficient" has all of the same problems and it's also ambiguous. If my library is efficient, does that mean it runs fast? Starts up fast? Uses memory efficiently? Bandwidth? "Performant" is etymologically strange, but in the place I've seen it used, it has an effective, precise meaning: "well-performing in speed relative to the needs of the problem". It means "fast enough" without the negative connotations of "enough", sort of like "plenty fast". Likewise, it's negation is usefully precise, "not performant" means "however fast it is, that isn't enough for our needs".
- Scramblejams 13y agoPlenty fast and not fast enough just don't do it then, huh? No, "performant" is one of those words which is usually chosen to flatter the speaker, not because it imparts some meaning which is so difficult to describe without it. When it comes to technical topics, amateurs write to impress. Professionals write for clarity.