Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I started reading this and honestly don’t see the part where he “compares poorly” against Muratori. And disclaimer, I know more about Casey and his work than I know about “Uncle Bob”. If anything, Bob managed to explain himself very well and defend his point of view, which is, “context matters and programmer cycles are more important than CPU cycles in the majority of contexts”. I think this is something we could all agree on, no?



> “context matters and programmer cycles are more important than CPU cycles in the majority of contexts”. I think this is something we could all agree on, no?

I don’t think people agree on this (I don’t at least). I like the story falsely attributed to Steve Jobs about how saving a user 1 second will save hundreds of years or whatever. From that perspective, programmer cycles are way less important than CPU cycles because every CPU cycle you save has a multiplicative effect depending on how many users you serve. And how true is that today when you have thousands of large business apps depending on one cloud service provider. The compounding effects of saving CPU cycles in every level of the stack has never been higher than it is today.


This had a very narrow context - so you're right to push back on parent applying it generally.

But Martin was originally saying that a program with DI will not be as fast as a program without DI ... i.e., interfaces!

When was the last time you were writing a program and thought that putting a class behind an interface would slow things down too much?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: