I added it now :)

Yes :)

Exactly. It is intentionally open-ended: new "principles" can emerge, split, or retire as the taxonomy evolves. This is just version 1. The grid is a visual index and the fun part is mappin systems to "molecules" in different domains like OS, databases, computer architecture, distributed systems, programming languages, networking, and more..

Yes, I just borrowed the periodic table metaphor. "Elements of System Design" is a better name.

Author here, great question :) If principles are the elements, we can think of each system as a "molecule" with some imagination. For example, an SQL database system has many principles:

1. Abstraction Lifting (Al) + Policy/Mechanism Separation (Pm): SQL states high-level intent with precise semantics, and logical operators are decoupled from physical operators.

2. Equivalence-based Planning (Ep) + Invariant-Guided Transformation (Ig): We apply algebraic rewrites that preserve semantics (e.g., join reordering, predicate pushdown) under stated invariants.

3. Cost-based Planning (Cm): We choose concrete physical operators and join orders using a cost model and so on..

Totally fair.. I am not claiming periodicity here :) I just wanted to use the "periodic table" as a visual metaphor. The goal is to outline a mostly orthogonal set of system design principles and illustrate cross-domain connections to students so that it is easier to compare trade-offs and discuss designs more precisely.

You keep doing you. It's a losing battle on my end. There will still be more Periodic Table of X on the internet after I've stopped yelling at clouds.

:)

Author here, appreciate the share :) I was not expecting this to get so much attention.

To clarify: this is indeed just a taxonomy of classic system-design principles. The periodic-table styling is a familiar metaphor; there is no claim that principles repeat periodically. The goal was to outline a mostly orthogonal set of design principles and highlight cross-domain connections across computer systems so it is easier to discuss designs precisely. Thanks for all the thoughtful feedback!

I came to say what others beat me to: this is not a periodic table, and calling it such is a legitimate disservice. It taints whatever value your content might hold because if it's presented as something that it's not, why should anyone trust it?

I strongly urge you to rename the project and most definitely update the body content of your README.md.

The best time was before you git pushed; the second best time is right now.

Agreed, I just updated it to "Elements of System Design".

Ok, we'll put that in the title above as well. Thanks!

It is based on the feedback shared by an undergraduate student -- pretty subjective. For instance, it is possible to graduate with a CS degree without even taking an introductory course on systems.

It's also possible to work for a decade in the industry without even knowing what you're referring to.

It is currently not possible to get rigorous summaries of paper chunks using GPT-4.

Wouldn't more semantically related neighbors be retrieved by just increasing K?

Potentially, yes! The scenario I am imagining is that context A as context for a query yields results 1, 2, and 3. Sometimes, finding neighbors of 1 (ie not necessarily in the top K w.r.t A) instead of going to results 4, 5, 6 might be better.