4 ms·

> This is a metric I'm more interested in … What's the average case here? The metric "my naive Rust" vs "my carefully implemented C" might be OK, once you figu

by igouy 8y ago

> This is a metric I'm more interested in … What's the average case here? The metric "my naive Rust" vs "my carefully implemented C" might be OK, once you figure out a consistent way to check code passes as "my naive Rust" or "my carefully implemented C". Until then it's just an anecdote. Might there be programmers whose "naive Rust" performs a lot worse than their "carefully implemented C"? Might that be unsurprising to them and uninteresting as a blog post?

gnuvince 8y ago
The naïve Rust part is explained in a video [1] that Bryan released a couple of weeks ago; instead of using bespoke data structures for his problem, he shoved everything into HashMaps and BTreeSets and used numerical indices rather than pointers to "emulate" a doubly-linked list. It turned out that was good enough to beat C. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWbGPMxs0AM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWbGPMxs0AM
- igouy 8y ago
  > … he shoved everything into … Did he do the same in C?
  - gnuvince 8y ago
    No, he had intrusive pointers; his rectangle nodes were in a couple of doubly-linked lists and an AVL tree at the same time.
    - igouy 8y ago
      So could we paraphrase as — maybe his "naive C" would be faster than his "carefully implemented C" ? He just wasn't comparing apples with apples?
steveklabnik 8y ago
I'm not going to fight with you about this simultaneously on two web sites, sorry. See the reddit thread.
- igouy 8y ago
  You'd only be fighting on one website — on proggit you said you agreed ;-) https://old.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/9gzppu/falling_in_love_with_rust/e6a8vak/?st=jmi089fj&sh=1fa274f9 https://old.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/9gzppu/falling...