invalidation

There are only two hard things in Art: critic invalidation and naming things.

There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation and naming things.

Wait a minute, I always thought the two hard things were cache invalidation, naming things\nand off by one errors.

"There are only two hard problems in Computer Science: cache invalidation and naming things."

I think the joke is: "There are only two hard things in Computer Science; cache invalidation, naming things and off by one errors".

This issue could be resolved in one session of Congress with the invalidation of all software patents, current and future. What to do?

I often use "There are 2 hard problems in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-1 errors."

I happen to think that the patent office's invalidation is correct, but even if you don't... this is no way to run a railroad.

There are two hard problems in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors.

There are only 2 things hard in programming, cache invalidation, naming things and off by one errors. Personally I think this name is bad because in spite of the enormous length it still doesn't tell me what it actually does.

"There are only three hard problems in Computer Science: cache invalidation, naming things, off-by-one errors and pedantry."

Off-topic, I've often heard the quote: "There are only two hard problems in Computer Science:\n cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors."

"There's only two hard problems in software engineering: Naming things, cache invalidation and off-by-one errors"

I work on memcache at Facebook, and cache invalidation is a hard, hard problem. It's easy to think that we just overlooked this trivial fix, but the reality is that this just doesn't solve all possible cache consistency problems.

The same logic also prevents iterator invalidation and use-after-free, which are things that do occur in the real world and lead to security vulnerabilities. > Does Rust really call its threads "green threads"?

It's more the cognitive dissonance of believing one thing while seeing invalidation of that belief right in front of you. For a while it will be "this must be a mistake" before it gets to "Hmm, I guess I interpreted their motivations much differently than they actually are, time to move on."

It's mission would be to defend members and, in all cases, seek the invalidation of the patents in question. If something like that existed, trolls would know that the potential consequence of trying to enforce bullshit patents would be huge financial losses and the potential invalidation of their bullshit patents.

This could be either an available or consistent system, depending on how cache invalidation in peers works. In the available, eventually-consistent case you have the added benefit that all queries see a consistent snapshot of the system, even if that snapshot is not totally current.