←back to thread

Caching is an abstraction, not an optimization

(buttondown.com)
134 points samuel246 | 1 comments | 01 Jul 25 10:42 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
ckdot2 ◴[03 Jul 25 19:03 UTC] 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 #
EGreg ◴[03 Jul 25 19:41 UTC] No.44458502[source]▶
I never understood about cache invalidation or naming things

Both are not that difficult, honestly.

Aren’t there a lot harder things out there

replies(8): >>44458592 #>>44458650 #>>44458692 #>>44458868 #>>44458913 #>>44459031 #>>44459481 #>>44459828 #
gryfft ◴[03 Jul 25 19:57 UTC] No.44458650[source]▶
It's a little bit tongue in cheek; no one is seriously suggesting it's harder than P=NP or the problem of consciousness. But there's something a bit "death and taxes" to the inevitability that any large enough project is going to have some corner cases involving these old chestnuts.

Heck you can probably prove that any system for naming things is either inconsistent or incomplete.

replies(1): >>44459457 #
1. TeMPOraL ◴[03 Jul 25 21:49 UTC] No.44459457[source]▶
> no one is seriously suggesting it's harder than P=NP or the problem of consciousness.

Well, I for one feel that "naming things" ultimately boils down to the latter, which may or may not be harder than the former.