3 ms·

Performant?

by nodata 12y ago

Performant?

lvh 12y ago
Yes, performant. The article shows how a tinhole-based get-in is significantly faster than the default get-in. (The methodology could be a bit nicer; it's a simple timed doseq, but it does show some performance gains.)
rubiquity 12y ago
I'm not sure if you're asking whether this library performs well or are picking on the use of the made-up-for-engineer's-use word "performant." I'm going to assume the latter. I think it's an OK word to use. It's a succinct way of saying something performs well. We programmers tend to have a deep history in stealing terms from other industries and butchering their meaning (orthogonal, impedance mismatch), it's about time we make up some of our own!
- delluminatus 12y ago
  Well, I have no problem with making up words, but I feel like mentioning that there is an even more concise term that could be used: "fast". Although this word doesn't have a scientific gleam or a stamp of enterprise approval, it is actually more specific than "performant". Technical words are nice but sometimes they just serve to hide details. All that glitters is not gold.
  - deeviant 12y ago
    Perhaps he didn't want the more specific word? Fast means fast, great, I get that. But what if you want fast code that works consistently, "performs" well, if you will. Then performant efficiently fills an appropriate niche. I am not sure if that is the goal of the original statement, but the point stands nevertheless. All words were just made up at some point of time or another and it should be trivial to prove the set of words available in any language's vocabulary is a very small subset of the set of all ideas one could possibly express; for this reason I think the creation of new words should not be discouraged unless there is a compelling reason to do so. In the end, the word accomplishes what language ought to: it conveyed an idea which was more or less understood by the target audience it was aimed out.
  - solipsism 12y ago
    * it is actually more specific than "performant"* I disagree. See this use of 'fast' in a submission, for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7132044 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7132044 What does "fast" mean there? It could mean the development environments are performant. Or it could mean they're quick to implement or set up. I believe the latter is what is intended, but I can't be sure from the submission or even the article, because the word "fast" is not very specific. In this context, the word "performant" would have been much more clear. Language is fuzzy and malleable and subjective. People shouldn't be so quick to lay down declarations of approved or preferred words. And to chide someone for using a word that hasn't made it to the dictionary yet is tantamount to declaring that we should freeze English and never change it (referring to the great-grandparent post here).

Performant?

by nodata 12y ago

Performant?

lvh 12y ago

Yes, performant. The article shows how a tinhole-based get-in is significantly faster than the default get-in. (The methodology could be a bit nicer; it's a simple timed doseq, but it does show some performance gains.)

rubiquity 12y ago

I'm not sure if you're asking whether this library performs well or are picking on the use of the made-up-for-engineer's-use word "performant." I'm going to assume the latter. I think it's an OK word to use. It's a succinct way of saying something performs well. We programmers tend to have a deep history in stealing terms from other industries and butchering their meaning (orthogonal, impedance mismatch), it's about time we make up some of our own!

delluminatus 12y ago
Well, I have no problem with making up words, but I feel like mentioning that there is an even more concise term that could be used: "fast". Although this word doesn't have a scientific gleam or a stamp of enterprise approval, it is actually more specific than "performant". Technical words are nice but sometimes they just serve to hide details. All that glitters is not gold.
- deeviant 12y ago
  Perhaps he didn't want the more specific word? Fast means fast, great, I get that. But what if you want fast code that works consistently, "performs" well, if you will. Then performant efficiently fills an appropriate niche. I am not sure if that is the goal of the original statement, but the point stands nevertheless. All words were just made up at some point of time or another and it should be trivial to prove the set of words available in any language's vocabulary is a very small subset of the set of all ideas one could possibly express; for this reason I think the creation of new words should not be discouraged unless there is a compelling reason to do so. In the end, the word accomplishes what language ought to: it conveyed an idea which was more or less understood by the target audience it was aimed out.
- solipsism 12y ago
  * it is actually more specific than "performant"* I disagree. See this use of 'fast' in a submission, for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7132044 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7132044 What does "fast" mean there? It could mean the development environments are performant. Or it could mean they're quick to implement or set up. I believe the latter is what is intended, but I can't be sure from the submission or even the article, because the word "fast" is not very specific. In this context, the word "performant" would have been much more clear. Language is fuzzy and malleable and subjective. People shouldn't be so quick to lay down declarations of approved or preferred words. And to chide someone for using a word that hasn't made it to the dictionary yet is tantamount to declaring that we should freeze English and never change it (referring to the great-grandparent post here).