3 ms·

A while back I did a whirlwind tour trying out different parallel looping abstractions in different languages, comparing their performance and ease of use. Rus

A while back I did a whirlwind tour trying out different parallel looping abstractions in different languages, comparing their performance and ease of use. Rust+Rayon was one of the best. Simple code, fast runtime: https://jackmott.github.io/programming/2016/08/30/think-before-you-parallelize.html https://jackmott.github.io/programming/2016/08/30/think-befo...

masklinn 10y ago
The first phrase is objectionable, the Pentium D was a (pretty badly implemented) reaction to AMD's announcement that they were going to bring their workstation and server dual-cores to the desktop. And while Intel technically did manage to take the crown the D was a pretty bad dual-core compared to the A64X2.
- oldmanjay 10y ago
  From an editorial perspective that digression wouldn't have added a whole lot to the point of the page. What would you be hoping to communicate?
  - jackmott 10y ago
    It might be slightly good to at least mention that AMD and Intel both worked on this at about the same time. I may make this edit next time I push an update for something else. I welcome pedantic critiques because, well..I too am pedantic. :D
    - masklinn 10y ago
      Alternatively, remove that mention and just note that over the last 10 years pretty much all computers have become multi-core, even expanding to multi-core phones?
  - masklinn 10y ago
    > From an editorial perspective that digression wouldn't have added a whole lot to the point of the page. Then remove it altogether and only talk in generalities? The rest of the paragraph doesn't namedrop specific brands.
    - oldmanjay 10y ago
      I'm sorry, somehow I thought there was something interesting behind this beyond mere brand loyalty/antipathy. I see now I was mistaken.
      - masklinn 10y ago
        Er… what? You're the one who objected on editorial grounds that a digression into the more interesting facets of the issue would detail from the core of the article. I'm providing an easy fix of not raising the issue by not putting in objectionable details in the first place, that has nothing to do with "brand loyalty/antipathy".
keldaris 10y ago
As you already hinted at in your article, the choice of MSVC++ as the "best" Windows C++ compiler is highly debatable. GCC, Clang and ICC will all generate significantly faster binaries for your code examples and, in the case of ICC, automatically parallelize the loop and take advantage of any SIMD instructions (up to AVX-512) available on your hardware. It doesn't always get everything right, but for simple cases it's usually very close to optimal in my experience, and vastly superior to MSVC++.

masklinn 10y ago

The first phrase is objectionable, the Pentium D was a (pretty badly implemented) reaction to AMD's announcement that they were going to bring their workstation and server dual-cores to the desktop. And while Intel technically did manage to take the crown the D was a pretty bad dual-core compared to the A64X2.

oldmanjay 10y ago
From an editorial perspective that digression wouldn't have added a whole lot to the point of the page. What would you be hoping to communicate?
- jackmott 10y ago
  It might be slightly good to at least mention that AMD and Intel both worked on this at about the same time. I may make this edit next time I push an update for something else. I welcome pedantic critiques because, well..I too am pedantic. :D
  - masklinn 10y ago
    Alternatively, remove that mention and just note that over the last 10 years pretty much all computers have become multi-core, even expanding to multi-core phones?
- masklinn 10y ago
  > From an editorial perspective that digression wouldn't have added a whole lot to the point of the page. Then remove it altogether and only talk in generalities? The rest of the paragraph doesn't namedrop specific brands.
  - oldmanjay 10y ago
    I'm sorry, somehow I thought there was something interesting behind this beyond mere brand loyalty/antipathy. I see now I was mistaken.
    - masklinn 10y ago
      Er… what? You're the one who objected on editorial grounds that a digression into the more interesting facets of the issue would detail from the core of the article. I'm providing an easy fix of not raising the issue by not putting in objectionable details in the first place, that has nothing to do with "brand loyalty/antipathy".

keldaris 10y ago

As you already hinted at in your article, the choice of MSVC++ as the "best" Windows C++ compiler is highly debatable. GCC, Clang and ICC will all generate significantly faster binaries for your code examples and, in the case of ICC, automatically parallelize the loop and take advantage of any SIMD instructions (up to AVX-512) available on your hardware. It doesn't always get everything right, but for simple cases it's usually very close to optimal in my experience, and vastly superior to MSVC++.