←back to thread

134 points samuel246 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.207s | source
Show context
ckdot2 ◴[] No.44458190[source]
"I think now caching is probably best understood as a tool for making software simpler" - that's cute. Caching might be beneficial for many cases, but if it doesn't do one thing then this is simplifying software. There's that famous quote "There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation and naming things.", and, sure, it's a bit ironical, but there's some truth in there.
replies(11): >>44458265 #>>44458365 #>>44458502 #>>44459091 #>>44459123 #>>44459372 #>>44459490 #>>44459654 #>>44459905 #>>44460039 #>>44460321 #
whateveracct ◴[] No.44458365[source]
caching often does simplify software though when done well

and - as the OP suggests - it works best when the cache is a well-defined abstraction with properties and rules about how it works

just because "caching" is mentioned in a meme doesn't mean it can't be true that it can simplify software

replies(7): >>44458520 #>>44458529 #>>44458670 #>>44458723 #>>44458778 #>>44458835 #>>44460773 #
1. meesles ◴[] No.44458520[source]
> caching often does simplify software though when done well

I have to push back here, I think this is objectively untrue. By definition a system or piece of code on where you add a condition where something else happens (cache) that behaves differently than the uncached path increases complexity.

I'm not saying it's wrong to cache things or that they aren't useful, but I think they absolutely are an abstraction and an optimization at the cost of complexity. Good code bases hide complexity from the devs all the time, so it's not a question of whether you can code it away, but rather how difficult is it to troubleshoot the internals of the system.