Brad Fitzpatrick (brad) wrote,
Brad Fitzpatrick
brad

memcached article

Memcached article is at 3200 words, which is 400 words too long. Spent quite some time today re-reading/re-structuring/re-writing lots of it. Reasonably happy, but all I want to do is elaborate at this point, not cut.

For example, often I have an area like:
Point A. Well, not entirely true. Caveat A2 which is useful/notable in case A3. Therefore, A, considering A2+A3, implies B.
But the A2+A3 part is kinda unnecessary. Most readers wouldn't care. But saying this:
Point A, implies point B.
isn't entirely true, and some readers could catch me on it, or at least tune out, figuring I was clueless. It's those readers I'd want to lock in. But leaving in the A2+A3 could push away some of the readers less knowledgable about the subject.

So the big challenge at every sentence is how deep to go while keeping both the informed and less informed interested.

I'm also not sure about the reader's backgrounds. How much computer science stuff do you explain? It's somewhat necessary to explain hashtables to convey how memcached clients pick servers (memcached instances being analogous to hashtable buckets), but I don't want to really go into it.

I told Whitaker to read it first because I need a break. When I'm more confident of it, I'll send it out to those of you who offered to review.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 12 comments