Merge branch 'master' of github.com:dwmkerr/hacker-laws into feat/chinese-link

1 files changed, 15 insertions, 13 deletions

diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
index cbb4003..378dd90 100644
--- a/README.md
+++ b/README.md
@@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
 # 💻📖 hacker-laws
 
+[中文](https://github.com/nusr/hacker-laws-zh)
+
 Laws, Theories, Principles and Patterns that developers will find useful.
 
 🇨🇳 [Hacker Laws in Chinese](https://github.com/nusr/hacker-laws-zh) - Thanks [Steve Yu](https://github.com/nusr)
@@ -60,7 +62,7 @@ The diagram below shows some examples of potential improvements in speed:
 
 *(Image Reference: By Daniels220 at English Wikipedia, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AmdahlsLaw.svg)*
 
-As can be seen, even a program which is 50% parallelisable will benefit very little beyond 10 processing units, where as a program which is 95% parallelisable can still achieve significant speed improvements with over a thousand processing units.
+As can be seen, even a program which is 50% parallelisable will benefit very little beyond 10 processing units, whereas a program which is 95% parallelisable can still achieve significant speed improvements with over a thousand processing units.
 
 As [Moore's Law](#moores-law) slows, and the acceleration of individual processor speed slows, parallelisation is key to improving performance. Graphics programming is an excellent example - with modern Shader based computing, individual pixels or fragments can be rendered in parallel - this is why modern graphics cards often have many thousands of processing cores (GPUs or Shader Units).
 
@@ -75,9 +77,9 @@ See also:
 
 > Adding human resources to a late software development project makes it later.
 
-This law suggests that in many cases, attempting to accelerate the delivery of a project which is already late, by adding more people, will make the delivery even later. Brooks is clear that this is an over-simplification, however the general reasoning is that given the ramp up time of new resources and the communication overheads, in the immediate short-term velocity decreases. Also, many tasks may not be divisible, i.e. easily distributed between more resources, meaning the potential velocity increase is also lower.
+This law suggests that in many cases, attempting to accelerate the delivery of a project which is already late, by adding more people, will make the delivery even later. Brooks is clear that this is an over-simplification, however, the general reasoning is that given the ramp up time of new resources and the communication overheads, in the immediate short-term velocity decreases. Also, many tasks may not be divisible, i.e. easily distributed between more resources, meaning the potential velocity increase is also lower.
 
-The common phrase in delivery "Nine women can't make a baby in one month" relates to Brooks's Law, in particular the fact that some kinds of work are not divisible or parallelisable.
+The common phrase in delivery "Nine women can't make a baby in one month" relates to Brooks's Law, in particular, the fact that some kinds of work are not divisible or parallelisable.
 
 See also:
 
@@ -140,7 +142,7 @@ In short, this cycle suggests that there is typically a burst of excitement arou
 >
 > (Hyrum Wright)
 
-Hyrum's Law states that when you have a _large enough number of consumers_ of an API, all behaviours of the API (even those not defined as part of a public contract) will eventually come to be depended on by someone. A trivial examples may be non-functional elements such as the response time of an API. A more subtle example might be consumers who are relying on applying a regex to an error message to determine the *type* of error of an API. Even if the public contract of the API states nothing about the contents of the message, indicating users should use an associated error code, _some_ users may use the message, and changing the message essentially breaks the API for those users.
+Hyrum's Law states that when you have a _large enough number of consumers_ of an API, all behaviours of the API (even those not defined as part of a public contract) will eventually come to be depended on by someone. A trivial example may be non-functional elements such as the response time of an API. A more subtle example might be consumers who are relying on applying a regex to an error message to determine the *type* of error of an API. Even if the public contract of the API states nothing about the contents of the message, indicating users should use an associated error code, _some_ users may use the message, and changing the message essentially breaks the API for those users.
 
 See also:
 
@@ -153,7 +155,7 @@ See also:
 
 > The number of transistors in an integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years.
 
-Often used to illustrate the sheer speed at which semiconductor and chip technology has improved, Moore's prediction has proven to be highly accurate over from the 1970s to the late 2000s. In more recent years, the trend has changed slightly, partly due to [physical limitations on the degree to which components can be miniaturised](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling). However, advancements in parallelisation, and potentially revolutionary changes in semi-conductor technology and quantum computing may mean that Moore's Law could continue to hold true for decades to come.
+Often used to illustrate the sheer speed at which semiconductor and chip technology has improved, Moore's prediction has proven to be highly accurate over from the 1970s to the late 2000s. In more recent years, the trend has changed slightly, partly due to [physical limitations on the degree to which components can be miniaturised](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling). However, advancements in parallelisation, and potentially revolutionary changes in semiconductor technology and quantum computing may mean that Moore's Law could continue to hold true for decades to come.
 
 ### Parkinson's Law
 
@@ -211,7 +213,7 @@ This law states that abstractions, which are generally used in computing to simp
 
 An example might be loading a file and reading its contents. The file system APIs are an _abstraction_ of the lower level kernel systems, which are themselves an abstraction over the physical processes relating to changing data on a magnetic platter (or flash memory for an SSD). In most cases, the abstraction of treating a file like a stream of binary data will work. However, for a magnetic drive, reading data sequentially will be *significantly* faster than random access (due to increased overhead of page faults), but for an SSD drive, this overhead will not be present. Underlying details will need to be understood to deal with this case (for example, database index files are structured to reduce the overhead of random access), the abstraction 'leaks' implementation details the developer may need to be aware of.
 
-The example above can become more complex when _more_ abstractions are introduced. The Linux operating system allows files to be accessed over a network, but represented locally as 'normal' files. This abstraction will 'leak' if there are network failures. If a developer treats these files as 'normal' files, without considering the fact that they may be subject to network latency and failures, the solutions will be buggy.
+The example above can become more complex when _more_ abstractions are introduced. The Linux operating system allows files to be accessed over a network but represented locally as 'normal' files. This abstraction will 'leak' if there are network failures. If a developer treats these files as 'normal' files, without considering the fact that they may be subject to network latency and failures, the solutions will be buggy.
 
 The article describing the law suggests that an over-reliance on abstractions, combined with a poor understanding of the underlying processes, actually makes dealing with the problem at hand _more_ complex in some cases.
 
@@ -237,9 +239,9 @@ The fictional example above led to the usage of the term 'Bike Shedding' as an e
 
 [The Unix Philosophy on Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy)
 
-The Unix Philosophy is that software components should be small, and focused on doing one specific thing well. This can make it easier to build systems by composing together small, simple, well defined units, rather than using large, complex, multi-purpose programs.
+The Unix Philosophy is that software components should be small, and focused on doing one specific thing well. This can make it easier to build systems by composing together small, simple, well-defined units, rather than using large, complex, multi-purpose programs.
 
-Modern practices like 'Microservice Architecture' can be thought of as an application of this law, where services are small, focused and do one specific thing, allowing complex behaviour to be composed from simple building blocks.
+Modern practices like 'Microservice Architecture' can be thought of as an application of this law, where services are small, focused and do one specific thing, allowing complex behaviour to be composed of simple building blocks.
 
 ### The Spotify Model
 
@@ -302,7 +304,7 @@ These are key principles in [Object-Oriented Programming](#todo). Design princip
 
 The first of the '[SOLID](#solid)' principles. This principle suggests that modules or classes should do one thing and one thing only. In more practical terms, this means that a single, small change to a feature of a program should require a change in one component only. For example, changing how a password is validated for complexity should require a change in only one part of the program.
 
-Theoretically this should make code more robust, and easier to change. Knowing that a component which is being changed has a single responsibility only means that _testing_ that change should be easier. Using the earlier example, changing the password complexity component should only be able to affect the features which relate to password complexity. It can be much more difficult to reason about the impact of a change to a component which has many responsibilities.
+Theoretically, this should make the code more robust, and easier to change. Knowing that a component which is being changed has a single responsibility only means that _testing_ that change should be easier. Using the earlier example, changing the password complexity component should only be able to affect the features which relate to password complexity. It can be much more difficult to reason about the impact of a change to a component which has many responsibilities.
 
 See also:
 
@@ -334,9 +336,9 @@ See also:
 
 The third of the '[SOLID](#solid)' principles. This principle states that if a component relies on a type, then it should be able to use subtypes of that type, without the system failing or having to know the details of what that subtype is.
 
-As an example, imagine we have a method which reads an XML document from a structure which represents a file. If the method uses a base type 'file', then anything which derives from 'file' should be able to be used in the function. If 'file' supports seeking in reverse, and the xml parser uses that function, but the derived type 'network file' fails when reverse seeking is attempted, then the 'network file' would be violating the principle.
+As an example, imagine we have a method which reads an XML document from a structure which represents a file. If the method uses a base type 'file', then anything which derives from 'file' should be able to be used in the function. If 'file' supports seeking in reverse, and the XML parser uses that function, but the derived type 'network file' fails when reverse seeking is attempted, then the 'network file' would be violating the principle.
 
-This principle has particular relevance for object-orientated programming, where type hierarchies must be modelled carefully to avoid confusing users of a system.
+This principle has particular relevance for object-orientated programming, where type hierarchies must be modeled carefully to avoid confusing users of a system.
 
 See also:
 
@@ -351,7 +353,7 @@ See also:
 
 The fourth of the '[SOLID](#solid)' principles. This principle states that consumers of a component should not depend on functions of that component which it doesn't actually use.
 
-As an example, imagine we have a method which reads an XML document from structure which represents a file. It only needs to read bytes, move forwards or move backwards in the file. If this method needs to be updated because an unrelated feature of the file structure changes (such as an update to the permissions model used to represent file security), then the principle has been invalidated. It would be better for the file to implement a 'seekable-stream' interface, and for the XML reader to use that.
+As an example, imagine we have a method which reads an XML document from a structure which represents a file. It only needs to read bytes, move forwards or move backwards in the file. If this method needs to be updated because an unrelated feature of the file structure changes (such as an update to the permissions model used to represent file security), then the principle has been invalidated. It would be better for the file to implement a 'seekable-stream' interface, and for the XML reader to use that.
 
 This principle has particular relevance for object-orientated programming, where interfaces, hierarchies and abstract types are used to [minimise the coupling](#todo) between different components. [Duck typing](#todo) is a methodology which enforces this principle by eliminating explicit interfaces.
 
@@ -366,7 +368,7 @@ See also:
 
 [The Dependency Inversion Principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_inversion_principle)
 
-> High level modules should not be dependent on low-level implementations.
+> High-level modules should not be dependent on low-level implementations.
 
 The fifth of the '[SOLID](#solid)' principles. This principle states that higher level orchestrating components should not have to know the details of their dependencies.