I keep getting the red underlining in Word whenever I write the word "performant". Here I intend to refer to something that performs well or better than something else (i.e., it's more performant).
Is there something wrong with that word? Does it mean what I actually want it to say?
Whether or not "performant" is actually a real word has been debated for some time.
It does not appear in the dictionary, nor does Google definitions include it.
While it has been used before and appears in wiktionary, I would tend to avoid using it until the word becomes, well...a word.
Is there any reason you could not use one of the following instead?
Example A performed better than Example B.
or
Example A outperformed Example B.
Jon Galloway's blog article Performant isn't a word is an example of someone who used "performant" extensively only to be told it was not a word. While the research he did on the subject was conducted in 2007, it certainly seems to remain valid today.
I use the word performant often, and its meaning (in my opinion) is subtly different from that of fast or efficient. The most performant network might not be the fastest, or the most efficient, but the one which provides the best overall service.
My IT systems are both performant and resilient.
The above seems (to me) to be very succinct. The word performant implies speed, accuracy, flexibility and capability — it implies that my IT systems are just right for my environment. They might not be the fastest, and not necessarily the most feature-packed, but they're just right for my needs.
I like performant.
It does mean what you want to say, possibly, but it's not the clearest way of saying it.
Performant is being increasingly used, therefore it deserves to be considered a word. I still have misgivings about it though, largely because it seems redundant: you could instead say "fast" or "efficient".
If something's fast, why not just say so, instead of using the word performant?
And more performant is even sillier, when you could just say faster.
At the moment, it's still the sort of word you tend to see written in press releases or spoken by marketing people. To me it's a weasel-word like "premier", which sounds promising but technically meaningless and legally non-binding (what does "premier" actually mean? First, biggest, fastest, best-selling or highest ranking sales by value?)
The word performant could mean one of several things depending on the context (fast, efficient, small, optimal) and not using one of those alternative words suggests (to me) that the speaker/writer doesn't know what he's talking about, or for some reason doesn't want me to know what he's talking about.
Go ahead and use the word if you like, but I won't trust you, because you'll sound like a sales brochure.
In French, it's an actual word that means something like performs effectively, efficiently, and well. So, French students use it regularly because it sounds like English, although I'd classify it as a false cognate.
The word performant is engineering jargon for something that may not be objectively efficient or optimal/fast but meets the performance expectations for which it was created. When an engineer uses the word performant, they mean that it's as fast and efficient as you would intuitively expect it to be. It's not meant to declare that it's the optimal or best solution, just that after working through the problem, it's the solution he settled on, and it was as fast and efficient as he expected it to be while still remaining within other project constraints.
EDIT: Thanks to Sven for contributing a link to this page where the writers associate the degree to which an entity is performant to how well they satisfy some objective. This is very much how I've seen this word used among engineers; something is deemed performant not by merely being fast but by meeting an objective for speed.
It's all about context and connotation. If I improve part of a system that will also improve performance, I might mention in a meeting that I made the part of the system more performant, which could mean that I made it use less memory or processor time, eliminated a redundant and expensive call, used a better algorithm, replaced an external call with an internal one, the list goes on and on. But most everyone at the meeting only cares about the result, and they'll come to me afterwards to discuss the change if they are curious.
It will probably make it into the dictionaries eventually, but in the mean time there's little reason not to use the alternatives, especially since you're writing a document. If you really do want to say something is performant, you can instead outline the metrics for your comparison and use a more appropriate word like other answers have suggested. On the other hand, depending on your intended audience, throwing a buzzword like "performant" in may be helpful. Just use it with care outside of engineering circles.
For inquiring minds:
It's easy to illustrate how the word performant is used in software engineering. Consider sorting a set of numbers from smallest to greatest. Every first year Computer Science student learns the Quicksort algorithm. It is the go-to sorting algorithm because it tends to behave optimally in practice. It has a flaw, however, that can make it abysmally slow on some lists. One of the first and simplest sorting algorithms a student is introduced to, called Insertion sort, can handily beat it in some cases, even though it's usually a very bad choice of sorting algorithm (for large lists).
Which leads to a conundrum: if performant could be simply interchanged with optimal or best, which sorting algorithm would be performant: Quicksort, or Insertion sort? The answer is, "It depends."
It's that way with every algorithm. If you ask someone if their code is efficient or fast, the answer must always be "It depends." How do you define efficient? How do you define fast? And so the "made-up" or "invalid" word performant was born. It allows developers to state with certainty that given resource constraints and expectations, including how much time the developer was given to solve the problem, the proposed solution is performant. It usually implies that performance goals were taken into account, but doesn't exaggerate by saying that it is the fastest solution possible.
In some way, I think developers like to use it because the longer you write software, the humbler you become. I prefer to say that my code is performant (i.e. performance meets expectations) than to say that it is fast or the best way to handle something, because inevitably someone comes along and creates a way better than mine. It's the nature of engineering, all of us standing on the shoulders of giants. It may seem noncommittal, but what exactly do you say when you write something that you know will be obsolete months or years after it's written?
All of that said, whether it is a "word" by anyone's definition, I guarantee it will continue to be used in development circles, as it is not as interchangeable as people outside the field think.
There's not really anything inherently wrong with performant; its formation is regular enough and it seems to convey a meaning that no other single word conveys. If that is enough for you, then go ahead. But you ought to know that the word will be ill-regarded by many, who will consider it a pseudo-learned, affected, vulgar and pointless novelty. Of course, perhaps they are wrong about this, but even if so, they may well be people whose good opinion of your language is important to you.
I would avoid using "performant" in any formal documentation or technical report. However -- coming from the other side of the debate -- I think that there's nothing wrong with using performant.
The English language, along with all other living languages, transform regularly. The more a word is used, the more that it will be accepted. I would be surprised, in fact, if the word doesn't hit the dictionary soon.
As long as you're in a fairly informal situation, I see nothing wrong with using the word. I agree to avoid it in anything formal, though.
To all the people saying that "performant" is not in the dictionary and it is not a word, I refer you to the Oxford English Dictionary:
A person who performs a duty, ceremony, etc., a performer.
Of course, that doesn't help back up what you've been writing, OP, but it is quite interesting.
Personally I understand your usage of "performant" just fine – as long as your audience does too, I wouldn't worry too much what the dictionary says. Maybe it'll catch on, like busting caps, moves, and rhymes.
"That performs or operates well; functioning at a high or sophisticated level; effective."
– Liam Miller-Cushon Dec 06 '19 at 01:07I've only heard a few programmers use it. Generally in a buzzword context to imply that a piece of software or an algorithm is "not slow."
Dictionaries do not tell you which words are valid and which are not. They document the words people are using
How words get added to the Cambridge dictionary
How words get added to the Oxford dictionary
Words come into the English language in all manner of ways. The Oxford English Dictionary’s mission is to record all of these word stories, capturing their development as they continue to unfold.
Notice it doesn't say "tell you which words are valid". It says "record all of these words"
How words get added to the Merriam Webster Dictionaries
Change and variation are as natural in language as they are in other areas of human life and Merriam-Webster reference works must reflect that fact. By relying on citational evidence, we hope to keep our publications grounded in the details of current usage so they can calmly and dispassionately offer information about modern English. That way, our references can speak with authority without being authoritarian.
They are not "authoritarian" (don't tell you if a word is valid) but they are on authority on usage (this is a record of how people use this word).
So, Are people using "performant"?
Well here's Google's developer documentation showing many uses of the word
Here's Microsoft's usage of the word
Checking Stack Overflow it's clear developers use this word often
As well as github users
Just searching in general brings up 19 million plus examples of usage
But if you want to claim it's not a word until some dictionary claims it is well then it's in the Cambridge English Dictionary as well as the Oxford Dictionary.
So, in answer to you question, nothing is wrong with the word "performant".
Does it help, in the question of validity of the word, to have it referenced in Apple's iOS Human Interface Guidelines ?
"Stretching is performant, but it isn’t usually desirable for a multipixel image that can distort. Tiling is less performant than stretching, but it's the only way to achieve a textured or patterned effect."
I had to look it up, which annoyed me, though the reasons for its use (given by @david-schwartz) are compelling.
Sentences should be succinct, to the point, and should directly convey the desired meaning without ambiguity.
Performant only adds ambiguity.
For instance, what does this example sentence actually mean?
The user interface should be highly performant.
Does that mean the interface should perform well? As in, should it sing and dance? Should it be minimalist? Should it be highly responsive? Use the precise words necessary to describe the desired outcome instead of imprecise jargon that makes you seem more interested in sounding important that in getting the work done.
See this answer for further commentary.
Acceptance of "Performant" as a word is a symptom of tautological references in the Software Engineering community.
It has been in use in Software Engineering circles since circa 1970 is slang for "efficient" or "tuned".
To answer the OP's question, "What is wrong with [it]", well, nothing really, but the above resources demonstrate that it is software engineering slang which is seldom used in publications outside of Information Technology and so hasn't been elevated to a dictionary word.
The usage I've seen of Performant means meeting expectations, working adequately, or working to specifications. It does not necessarily mean efficient or most efficient, though something that is performant could also be these things.
Thus, something is either performant or not (just as one is pregnant or not), and it's inappropriate to say something is MORE performant than something else.
A problem with using this word is it's not well known and perhaps early in its development. Future usage could easily change its meaning.
Singular synonyms may cover some cases, but they don't carry the meaning. Jon's blog tale in the accepted answer is but one of surprise and accedance. I make a case for the word performant, and detail why in this question.
