3 ms·

It is both, hence both numbers being listed. "I don't like that evidence" is not an argument. You asked if I had evidence, I provided it. If you still want t

It is both, hence both numbers being listed. "I don't like that evidence" is not an argument. You asked if I had evidence, I provided it. If you still want to believe go is not slow, then you provide evidence.

lobster_johnson 10y ago
The link you provided is not evidence, just an anecdote. It's not that I don't "like it"; it's absolutely not an indicator of anything real. At best it's an indication that all compilers have some startup overhead, some more or less than others. Based on JVM startup time alone, I could "prove" that Java was the slowest language in the world. The burden is on you to provide evidence, since it is your claim. Likewise, benchmarks to support the claim that OCaml's compiler is faster. I develop in Go daily, and nothing I've seen indicates that Go is anywhere close to approaching C++ in compilation slowness. (I have also worked extensively with C++.)
- MustardTiger 10y ago
  >The link you provided is not evidence, just an anecdote No it is not. A reproducible test is evidence, not anecdote. >At best it's an indication that all compilers have some startup overhead, some more or less than others. Based on JVM startup time alone, I could "prove" that Java was the slowest language in the world. That seems unlikely since we just saw otherwise. >The burden is on you to provide evidence, since it is your claim And I did. Dismissing it because it does not fit your preconceptions does not mean I need to continue supplying more and more evidence for you to dismiss without any justification. >I develop in Go daily, and nothing I've seen indicates that Go is anywhere close to approaching C++ in compilation slowness. (I have also worked extensively with C++.) Now that is an anecdote.
  - lobster_johnson 10y ago
    Again, it's not evidence. There's zero documentation about how the benchmark was done. Was it repeated? Is the timing "best of N", or a percentile? Was there warmup? And so on. The compile times are only shown in the Nim board comment, not the Github page, which doesn't benchmark compilation times. Again, where did the numbers come from? Secondly, again, it was for a ~70-line program. Do you seriously think that benchmarking the compilation of a 70-line program is statistically valuable? It's ridiculous. You completely missed the point of my JVM comment. Actually, I'm going to assume you're trolling. I'll stop here.
    - MustardTiger 10y ago
      >Again, it's not evidence. Repeating that will not make it so. The code is available, it is fully documented and reproducible. That is not an anecdote. >The compile times are only shown in the Nim board comment, not the Github page, which doesn't benchmark compilation times. Again, where did the numbers come from? So? Evidence does not become anecdote simply because you dislike the source. It doesn't need to be on github. It is where it is because the person who did it put it there. >Secondly, again, it was for a ~70-line program. Do you seriously think that benchmarking the compilation of a 70-line program is statistically valuable? If you want to make the argument that it is weak evidence then do so. But your insistence on dishonestly claiming evidence is anecdote is not constructive. >You completely missed the point of my JVM comment No I did not, I pointed out that it is nonsense. >Actually, I'm going to assume you're trolling. I'll stop here. The laziest cop out possible. Baseless "troll" accusations do not belong in real conversations. Make an effort to contribute.

lobster_johnson 10y ago

The link you provided is not evidence, just an anecdote. It's not that I don't "like it"; it's absolutely not an indicator of anything real. At best it's an indication that all compilers have some startup overhead, some more or less than others. Based on JVM startup time alone, I could "prove" that Java was the slowest language in the world. The burden is on you to provide evidence, since it is your claim. Likewise, benchmarks to support the claim that OCaml's compiler is faster. I develop in Go daily, and nothing I've seen indicates that Go is anywhere close to approaching C++ in compilation slowness. (I have also worked extensively with C++.)

MustardTiger 10y ago
>The link you provided is not evidence, just an anecdote No it is not. A reproducible test is evidence, not anecdote. >At best it's an indication that all compilers have some startup overhead, some more or less than others. Based on JVM startup time alone, I could "prove" that Java was the slowest language in the world. That seems unlikely since we just saw otherwise. >The burden is on you to provide evidence, since it is your claim And I did. Dismissing it because it does not fit your preconceptions does not mean I need to continue supplying more and more evidence for you to dismiss without any justification. >I develop in Go daily, and nothing I've seen indicates that Go is anywhere close to approaching C++ in compilation slowness. (I have also worked extensively with C++.) Now that is an anecdote.
- lobster_johnson 10y ago
  Again, it's not evidence. There's zero documentation about how the benchmark was done. Was it repeated? Is the timing "best of N", or a percentile? Was there warmup? And so on. The compile times are only shown in the Nim board comment, not the Github page, which doesn't benchmark compilation times. Again, where did the numbers come from? Secondly, again, it was for a ~70-line program. Do you seriously think that benchmarking the compilation of a 70-line program is statistically valuable? It's ridiculous. You completely missed the point of my JVM comment. Actually, I'm going to assume you're trolling. I'll stop here.
  - MustardTiger 10y ago
    >Again, it's not evidence. Repeating that will not make it so. The code is available, it is fully documented and reproducible. That is not an anecdote. >The compile times are only shown in the Nim board comment, not the Github page, which doesn't benchmark compilation times. Again, where did the numbers come from? So? Evidence does not become anecdote simply because you dislike the source. It doesn't need to be on github. It is where it is because the person who did it put it there. >Secondly, again, it was for a ~70-line program. Do you seriously think that benchmarking the compilation of a 70-line program is statistically valuable? If you want to make the argument that it is weak evidence then do so. But your insistence on dishonestly claiming evidence is anecdote is not constructive. >You completely missed the point of my JVM comment No I did not, I pointed out that it is nonsense. >Actually, I'm going to assume you're trolling. I'll stop here. The laziest cop out possible. Baseless "troll" accusations do not belong in real conversations. Make an effort to contribute.