4 ms·
>but if I can implement faster than Rust in a language that would also have similar safety properties then I'd rather do that, even if it meant somewhat slower
by kadenshep 8y ago
>but if I can implement faster than Rust in a language that would also have similar safety properties then I'd rather do that, even if it meant somewhat slower runtime performance.
Why? Does this really make sense? You write it once, it runs a multitude of times. Why is the extra 30 minutes (maybe) to implement in Rust worth more than the extra CPU cycles over countless runs? It's going to be less error prone and faster.
- lmm 8y ago> Why? Does this really make sense? You write it once, it runs a multitude of times. Why is the extra 30 minutes (maybe) to implement in Rust worth more than the extra CPU cycles over countless runs? CPU cycles are cheap - my CPU is idle most of the time - and my time is expensive. Given that the script in question is fetching a file over FTP, the time taken for that is going to swamp any compute time (even in the Python implementation). Even if you could make a version that ran instantly, how many times would I have to run the script to add up to saving 30 minutes of my time? It doesn't sound like the kind of script that's going to be in use for decades. > It's going to be less error prone and faster. Sure, but the overwhelming majority of the time "faster" doesn't matter. So I'm much more interested in comparing languages that have the same safety properties, and whether it's possible to get the same "less error prone" effect from a language that's easier to work in than Rust.