I don't personally use the word since there are many alternatives, but its use is now definitely widespread and consistently understood. There's really no argument against the fact that it has entered the English lexicon.
CW: ...and this way it'll be more performant too.
Me: Performant? As in faster?
CW: Yes.
Me (to self): Then why didn't you just say it'll be faster?
IMHO it obfuscates meaning and should be avoided; the surrounding discussion/vagueness about what it means (I don't think it means efficient, but only faster --- as in, a high-performance car) shows that too.
When schoolteacher Edna Krabappel hears the Springfield town motto "A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man," she comments she'd never heard of the word embiggens before moving to Springfield. Miss Hoover replies, "I don't know why; it's a perfectly cromulent word".
"Acceptable or adequate"
To my mind, the difference is that “performant” delivers results quickly, whereas “efficient” uses little energy. A performant solution might be efficient, but not necessarily, and vice versa. Does anyone else share this understanding or am I living in a linguistic bubble?
Not sure about Swedish (Daniel is Swedish), but in Finnish, we have the word “suorituskykyinen”, meaning “efficient” or “able to perform”. I can see how Finnish writers might want to use “performant” to replace this commonly used word. Perhaps there's a similar history for Swedish speakers? I sure have seen “performant” a lot in academic texts written by Finnish and Swedish speakers in the last 20 years.
efficiency = performance / resources
Performant emphasises the numerator much more.
nitpick aside, agreed
webster says:
"performant"
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.
preformant performance performing performances performable preformants perforate conformant perform formant performed informant performer perforata performers performs preformatEfficiency is relative to the amount of resources required to achieve a similar result. To use the car example above, a car that can do 100km/h at 4L/100km is more efficient than another can than do 100km/h at 8L/100km.
The point of absolute efficiency is referred to as optimum. Essentially, top performance possible with the minimum of resources possible.
It suffers in that doesn't sound very technical.
That's right - the CPU is faster at completing the job, though the GPU executes instructions more quickly.
[0] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/performa...
Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.
I just checked and the French have it too, I can see how it has slowly made its way into English, through immigration and especially the Internet.
A live language is always changing, resistance is futile. :)
This is close to being a contradiction in terms. The purpose of words is to communicate, and if a word is being successfully used to communicate -- which clearly it is -- what exactly does it mean to say that isn't "considered a real word"?
Also, "Considered" by whom? The dictionary? Dictionaries are descriptivist -- they record usage, they don't prescribe it [0]. If it isn't in the dictionary yet, that's only because the usage hasn't been used widely and/or for long enough that it meets the inclusion criteria [1].
(As it happens, "performant" is at the stage where it is starting to pass those thresholds, and is now in the OED [2])
[0] http://englishplus.com/news/news1100.htm
[1] http://public.oed.com/about/frequently-asked-questions/#qual...
Strictly speaking, I don't believe your [2] is the OED. It's "Oxford Living Dictionaries", which I assume tries to be more current/dynamic, but might be regarded as less authoritative.
Interestingly, the word "performant" is in the OED itself, with the earliest citation being from 1809 -- but it is listed only as a noun, meaning "A person who performs a duty, ceremony, etc., a performer", not the adjectival usage under discussion here.
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/262085?redirectedFrom=performa... (requires login)
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/performa...
If you had to go the TLS route and wanted better perf, then it'd make more sense to build a new, dead simple, framing protocol that actually specified working pipelining and eliminated HOL blocking by allowing out-of-order responses.
They're just using HTTP because HTTP(S) defaults to port 443 and it'll go through more firewalls, and I guess their thinking here is to (just add more complexity) and move to HTTP/2
If your question is how to reuse the connection pool for, say, 1000 DNS queries from one machine, curl already uses a connection pool. Next, to use fewer TCP connections and get faster response, my first proposal is HTTP/2 which supports TCP multiplexing such that multiple requests can be issued over a single TCP connection. Every response is return asynchronously, we can achieve nonblocking.
cURL also supports HTTP/2.
Speaking of word: it seems author of curl project prefers “curl” over “cURL”? Worth asking.
same goes for UDP which DNS runs over normally.
Like the original commenter, I fail to see how stacking DNS over HTTP over TLS over TCP over IP is going to be faster than running DNS over UDP over IP.
Also, you still need to resolve the address of your DNS-over-HTTP server, which you'd probably still do over traditional DNS-over-UDP.
This feels like doing nothing but adding complexity for zero gain.
Also you would probably need to put in the IP of the DNS server manually, exactly like you have to with DNS now.
From 2016: https://www.bizety.com/2016/01/26/half-of-chrome-to-google-t...
I understand the privacy and security aspects. But I am wondering - how can DNS over HTTPS be more performant in the case of curl commands? A browser could probably persist the connection to the resolver and issue several requests together, but with a single curl command surely there's the overhead of initiating the first DNS resolve, the HTTPS connection, the second DNS resolve. There must be some delay compared to regular DNS.
Side note - I just learned that performant is not a recognized word (https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/38945/what-is-wr...)