> I don’t think this is a useful analogy. Top speed is a randomly picked metric, which presumably most car buyers don’t care for.
My comment applies to any metric that is an unalloyed good, not just top speed. Saying "AWS has high up-time" or "This car rarely needs repairs" or "I never spill coffee with this cup" are suggestive that something has been designed well, but they are not themselves substantive comments about the design. For that you'd have to say how they achieved those things. It's the difference between a goal and the method.
> that’s the exact hallmark of not just a good but great design.
Talking about trade-offs between goals would be substantive discussion of design. That one metric got high marks without saying anything about how is not.
I don't think this digression into semantics has reached diminishing returns.
My comment applies to any metric that is an unalloyed good, not just top speed. Saying "AWS has high up-time" or "This car rarely needs repairs" or "I never spill coffee with this cup" are suggestive that something has been designed well, but they are not themselves substantive comments about the design. For that you'd have to say how they achieved those things. It's the difference between a goal and the method.
> that’s the exact hallmark of not just a good but great design.
Talking about trade-offs between goals would be substantive discussion of design. That one metric got high marks without saying anything about how is not.
I don't think this digression into semantics has reached diminishing returns.