Can you explain what you mean, perhaps with more than one sentence and a little less passive aggression?
We always work in a world where we have to make a variety of tradeoffs. If performance takes a higher importance in a given context, tradeoffs can be made on readability, flexibility, hireable skills, etc. Much of the art of our profession is in maximizing the radar graph for the facets that matter most for a particular situation.
You made a list of things that you supposedly gain by sacrificing performance, and I am telling you to prove your claims.
I don’t want to see stupid medium article childish anecdotes. I want to see a real measured study that backs up your host of claims, as you have assertively made them as if a fact not worthy of testing.
Maybe don’t speak so matter-of-factly about things that are not actually measured facts and you won’t have people asking you to source your claims?
>passive aggression
There was no aggression, passive or otherwise. You’re reading in to it, presumably because telling you to provide sources for your claims upsets you for some reason. Try not getting upset when people challenge your incorrect preconceptions.
"You made a list of things that you supposedly gain by sacrificing performance" - I did no such thing.
I said: "I really appreciate that point of view, especially when I have to optimize something that wasn't considering performance at all. One really does need to architect software with an eye to how it performs from the very beginning"
Clearly I'm saying you HAVE TO include performance concerns from the very beginning.
and "I'd LOVE a world where we elevated the concern for performance higher than it is now, but there's a range of other considerations that include ..."
So performance IS IMPORTANT, as well as a host of other concerns. Where did I advocate for "sacrificing performance"?
You said "Surely you should now be able to demonstrate that decent performance is none of the things in your list.". First off, that's not even good grammar, and it's not clear what you're asking for. "Decent performance" was baked in to the paragraphs of text proceeding the list.
"I want to see a real measured study that backs up your host of claims" - what claims? That we have a variety of tradeoffs to make besides just performance? That isn't a "claim", it's just the truth. It's called business. And I certainly don't have to prove anything to someone as off-putting as you.
Feigning ignorance when called out on your nonsense.
I see the mindset of the excuse parade has not changed in a couple years.
“I didn’t make any claims, I only stated that you have to trade away performance to get maintainability and readability. Where are the claims?! Definitely not the claim that performance and readability and maintainability trade off for sure. What claims?!”
We always work in a world where we have to make a variety of tradeoffs. If performance takes a higher importance in a given context, tradeoffs can be made on readability, flexibility, hireable skills, etc. Much of the art of our profession is in maximizing the radar graph for the facets that matter most for a particular situation.