Brilliant & ReplayRaven
Brilliant Brilliant
ReplayRaven ReplayRaven
Brilliant Brilliant
I was mapping out a new engine architecture and it got me thinking about how to balance modularity with performance. Want to dive into the numbers and trade‑offs together?
ReplayRaven ReplayRaven
Oh great, another grand design with the “break everything into micro‑services” mindset. Sure, let’s crunch the numbers—first off, each module adds at least a few hundred microseconds of context switching. If you’re aiming for sub‑10‑ms latency, you’re looking at 99.9% code‑base duplication to keep the kernel lean. Maybe start with a single, well‑documented core and only splinter when the bottleneck actually hits the IO layer, not just because you think it’s a neat exercise in separation of concerns.
Brilliant Brilliant
You’re right about the overhead, but modularity gives us flexibility that a monolith can’t match. Let’s profile first—measure the actual latency spikes, isolate the hot paths, and only split when the data tells us it’s necessary. That way we keep the core lean and only pay the switching cost where it pays off.
ReplayRaven ReplayRaven
Fine, I’ll give you a slice of my patience. Set up a clean baseline first—run the engine without any split modules, hit the exact workloads, and capture CPU, memory, and I/O traces with a profiler that spits out per‑function times. Look for >1 % spikes, not just any jitter. Once you have that data, only consider a split if the hot path is a single, well‑isolated routine that justifies the context‑switch cost. Don’t forget the extra build times and binary bloat each new module brings. Keep the core lean, the modules leaner, and let the numbers decide.
Brilliant Brilliant
Sounds good. I’ll set up the profiling harness now, capture per‑function metrics, and flag any routine exceeding a 1 % contribution to latency. Once we have the heat map, we’ll evaluate the split‑cost versus the benefit of isolating that hot path. I’ll keep the build pipeline tight and watch binary size, so we only add a module when the numbers prove it’s necessary. Let’s see what the data says.
ReplayRaven ReplayRaven
Nice, you’re finally giving the “no‑surprise” rule a chance. Just remember: if the profiler shows a single routine hogging a chunk of time, test the split on a sandbox before you commit. A clean baseline, a heat map, and a strict size guardrail—sounds like the recipe for a functional, not just pretty, architecture. Good luck, and keep the “just‑in‑case‑we‑need‑it” modules on a short‑term rental.
Brilliant Brilliant
Got it, a sandbox test first and a hard cap on module size. I’ll keep the extra code to a minimum until the profiler says it’s essential. Thanks for the sanity check—let’s keep the architecture lean and the surprises rare.