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"....
potentially too tangential, but because you did couch it as a question; one would presume that premier, from the french 'première' does mean first? But I really do agree with that subtle weaselling perception you get from marketers who think they possess the same creative license Shakespeare did because 'they're in the literary industry of today'
Yes, that's exactly it. I know in French it means "first", but to justify that word it would really have to be first, chronologically or by some other ranking. Using the French word instead allows the weaselly suggestion of superiority without needing any supporting evidence.
In terms of computing fast is not necessarily a good replacement for performant. On a slow computer a program could be well performing for the architecture, but I wouldn't call it fast in a general sense. For a peformant system, efficient only partially describes it. Not only is it efficient, but it's intended to make as much use of the hardware as possible to speed up it's processing of tasks; efficient doesn't describe this, but I believe performant does. Ex: "high performance multi-threaded system" vs "performant multi-threaded system". What do you think?
I think performant basically describes how well something is utilized, a relative measurement. Fast is an absolute, a hard benchmark, unless you clarify it relatively. You watch a young man run the 100m in 10s, then a young boy run it in 15s. The young man is certainly fast, the young boy not so much. However, the boy for his size and age, is fast. Or you could say they are both well performing runners, or performant runners. Anyway, at this point I've over thought the matter, I'm sure. ;p
Fast and efficient are not equivalent to performant. Performant means 'adequately fast' or 'adequately efficient'. Fast and efficient have no gauge of how fast or efficient the thing needs to be in order to be adequate. Performant implies that the adequate level of performance has been reached
Another issue with "performant" which I haven't seen mentioned here is that using it transforms an active phrase - "The system performs well" - into a passive one - "The system is performant". Whether or not performant is a word, this isn't a desirable change, because it weakens what you're trying to say.
@pjmorese: that's actually just a copula + adjective, not a passive phrase, but I agree that it generally sounds more technical, opaque and jargony. But apparently this is a well-known word in the actual field of computing, so as long as it's kept in mind that it is jargon, and therefore should only be used in writing addressed to people who are all part of that culture and will understand the meaning, it seems like there may be a place for the word.
Also in the context of a web server, one might interpret "fast" as describing latency, "efficient" as describing throughput, and "performant" as describing both.
+1 for the common-sense approach. Use words that are non-technical and precise since people who are non-technical and technical alike will have no problem understanding your point. See this for some good examples.
The software angle on this is important, I think, as performance does indeed have a different meaning from "fast" or "efficient" in that context. "Performance" takes into account the context in which a piece of software exists. "Fast" would be on the plane of the user, "efficient" on the plane of the code itself. A program can be "performant" while not every part of it is "efficient"; it may be "efficient" but perform poorly because of externalities.
The arguments about using "non-technical" words is actually an argument for it being added to the dictionary. It's extensively used within the IT space, quite particularly in computer programming, and is indeed a technical word. It's used when "faster" just doesn't cut it, the 2 words can mean different things. Often making something more performant does not mean making it faster. It may result in server power, load balancing, or even just asynchronicity (another word that should get added!). Anyway, if a word like photobomb can be added to the dictionary then surely performant can.
@pjmorse I would urge you to read this excellent piece by Geoffrey Pullum, which dispels a lot of the strange and unfounded myths that surround the passive voice in English. There is nothing ‘weaker’ about the passive voice than the active voice (and as sumelic said, there is no passive here at all).
It’s interesting how a bunch of people can explain what a word means, even though it doesn’t have an authoritative definition. Actually, that means that you could all run around with your own subjective definitions of the word.
@FrederikKrautwald: I find this word is one that only has subjective definitions. I've been a software guy for over 30 years and I still don't know what it means. I read it as a fancy word used to cover the users ignorance of what is actually better about the thing they're using it to describe. Just like replacing every "use" with "utilize". People who use these sound like they're trying to embiggen their smartitude. It's jargon but it's not a technical term because it's less precise than the words it replaces.
"If something's fast, why not just say so, instead of using the word performant?" For the same reason someone might say "Tommy was talented" instead of "Tommy played the piano and was also good at sports." You might want to be general, in some cases, instead of specific.
It may not be more precise but it definitely is used by very senior engineers and not just in press releases. I first heard it in Montreal within software teams working on high end special effects, many with PhDs in mathematics. Not sure how regional it is.
Discussion on answer by njd: What is …
Discussion on answer by njd: What is …