Rename: COGS -> efficiency

[sandersaares]

The term COGS (which was occasionally misspelled as COGs) feels like a potentially foreign term to the non-corporate part of the readership. This replaces it with "efficiency", which feels like the nearest Earthacan equivalent term.

[ralfbiedert]

Thanks for the PR. Yes, typo should be fixed, and I think "performance" is better for the two guidelines. However, high-level it's actually about COGS, not (only) performance. It might be splitting hairs, but for example spending a few more CPU cycles (or just waiting) to significantly reduce memory or I/O load would be a worthwhile trade-off.

[ralfbiedert]

Maybe adding a "What do you mean by COGS?" could be a good FAQ entry.

[sandersaares]

It might be splitting hairs, but for example spending a few more CPU cycles (or just waiting) to significantly reduce memory or I/O load would be a worthwhile trade-off.

That's why I used the word "efficiency" (== cost-efficiency == COGS) and not "performance". But from your comment I get the impression this distinction does not carry through very well, so perhaps not ideal choice by me.

[geeknoid]

I think if you replace "COGS" with "costs" and "cost-efficiency", you get a better doc with less jargon.

Just 'efficiency' however isn't sufficient, since efficiency can apply to many dimensions (cost, memory, power, latency, size, etc). 'Cost efficiency' is clear.