6 ms·

Suggestion: actually read the article. It's one of the few high-quality technical articles that pass through HN... if you don't get hung up on the title.

by dmpk2k 8y ago

saagarjha 8y ago
Please don’t do this here; I did read the article and this is my response to it. If you have a meaningful comment to make on my analysis, please reply with that instead.
- jerf 8y ago
  OK, read the article starting with the phrase "But that would be overlooking something important". Normally, "read the article" is a bit not-HN-friendly, but when you call someone out as disingenuous because they didn't say things that they in fact do clearly call out and have a multi-paragraph discussion of, you are earning a "please read the article" response. They're not being disingenuous about what they are doing if they clearly explain what that is and then have a (IMHO) balanced pro-and-con discussion about it.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    Ok, sure, I’ll accept that calling the article itself disingenuous was a bit harsh. But it does seem like it sent the message that Rust was faster than C, when it is clearly not a fair comparison (as the author mentions themself). I’m actually relatively happy with that part, but it comes at the end and it’s clearly spawned discussion here that proves my point; look at the other comments: the other top-level one says that I should rewrite everything in Rust because it performed better here.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - kibwen 8y ago
      > look at the other comments: the other top-level one says that I should rewrite everything in Rust because it performed better here That comment appears to be downvoted, and in addition the winking emoticon at the end suggests that it was meant to be tongue-in-cheek in any case.
      - saagarjha 8y ago
        It was the highest-voted top-level comment when I posted that.
        adwn 8y ago
        It was probably one of the most recent comments. New comments get a temporary rating boost to give them a chance to be read and earn upvotes.
      - Dylan16807 8y ago
        It also says you should rewrite things in rust "anyway ;)", not "because it's faster".
  - abenedic 8y ago
    Regardless of the person's reaction, they do make a very good point. There is a weird thing that happens when you criticize Rust on HN or Reddit where lots of people jump in to prove that any criticism is invalid. I like Rust well enough. I like C too, I have my issues with both, but when someone does raise an objection it can be hard having people pile on them after. A point of fact is that the two data structures are different. There was even an article on the front page today about how minor changes to data structures can dramatically impact performance. Anyway, my main point is that there should be a space to discuss the relative merits and issues of languages without it resorting to petty fighting, which even you and the OP and the other commenter are engaging in. Please everyone try to use the principle of charity when reading a post on this site. There is a good chance the person you are responding to has a reasonable background and isn't totally ignorant. Instead of playing on pedantry, try to understand where they are coming from and understand a one-off post on an internet forum is not the strongest argument they could make.
    - kibwen 8y ago
      > There is a weird thing that happens when you criticize Rust on HN or Reddit Can I ask where this impression came from? The original, now-downvoted comment that started this thread wasn't criticizing Rust, it was criticizing the article. If people disagree with that person's criticism of the article (which is itself not a criticism of C, and acknowledges as much), I'm afraid I don't see how that contributes to any perception that people are unjustifiably leaping to defend Rust.
      - lossolo 8y ago
        > Can I ask where this impression came from? Are you serious now? I mean you are very active Rust activist on both HN and Reddit and you exactly know what Rust Evangelic Strike Force is and where it came from. I've seen multiple threads on HN and Reddit where people do exactly what OP wrote. I don't know if it's denial or ignorance on your side or you are writing this with premeditation.
        kibwen 8y ago
- dwaltrip 8y ago
  The article very clearly calls out the data structure difference. Your statement that they simply are "chalking this up to language differences" is false. It's not surprising that you received a negative reaction.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    Despite the author’s claim that they are not trying to make a comparison, and their lengthy discussion on the details why such a comparison is not apt, we still ended up with a title that suggests a comparison and comments that focus on the two languages in relation to each other.
    - dwaltrip 8y ago
      That is a fair point. The title may be a bit misleading. Although, not entirely, as I'm sure you would agree we can't claim that different data structure is the only reason that the rust program was fast.
      - jblow 8y ago
        Which is exactly why it's a terrible benchmark -- it doesn't tell you anything about what you care about. Which is one reason why it's a terrible article. Another reason is that the author seems to have put a lot more engineering into the Rust program than the C program. Most of the word-count of the article is devoted to extra engineering on the Rust program! (The whole thing about sorting out lumps, etc). It's reasonable to infer that this also mirrors the situation prior to the first benchmark. If you put more effort into optimizing one program than another, you'd expect the higher-effort program to be faster, all else being equal. It's embarrassing that HN thinks this article is worth posting. There might be something to write about here, somewhere, but it would have to be framed in a very different way in order to be honest. Also, it would be a much shorter article.
        dwaltrip 8y ago
        I don't think the author was claiming that this is a rigorous benchmark, but I can see how it might look that way. I agree that it could have been framed a bit better, but I also don't think the author was trying to make any bold declarations. The technical aspects of the article are interesting and well written, but only if it is not viewed as an exercise in rigorous benchmarking. The context here was that the Rust program was a reimplementation of an existing C program, as part of an effort to learn Rust.

Suggestion: actually read the article. It's one of the few high-quality technical articles that pass through HN... if you don't get hung up on the title.

by dmpk2k 8y ago

Suggestion: actually read the article. It's one of the few high-quality technical articles that pass through HN... if you don't get hung up on the title.

saagarjha 8y ago

Please don’t do this here; I did read the article and this is my response to it. If you have a meaningful comment to make on my analysis, please reply with that instead.

jerf 8y ago
OK, read the article starting with the phrase "But that would be overlooking something important". Normally, "read the article" is a bit not-HN-friendly, but when you call someone out as disingenuous because they didn't say things that they in fact do clearly call out and have a multi-paragraph discussion of, you are earning a "please read the article" response. They're not being disingenuous about what they are doing if they clearly explain what that is and then have a (IMHO) balanced pro-and-con discussion about it.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  Ok, sure, I’ll accept that calling the article itself disingenuous was a bit harsh. But it does seem like it sent the message that Rust was faster than C, when it is clearly not a fair comparison (as the author mentions themself). I’m actually relatively happy with that part, but it comes at the end and it’s clearly spawned discussion here that proves my point; look at the other comments: the other top-level one says that I should rewrite everything in Rust because it performed better here.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - kibwen 8y ago
    > look at the other comments: the other top-level one says that I should rewrite everything in Rust because it performed better here That comment appears to be downvoted, and in addition the winking emoticon at the end suggests that it was meant to be tongue-in-cheek in any case.
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      It was the highest-voted top-level comment when I posted that.
      - adwn 8y ago
        It was probably one of the most recent comments. New comments get a temporary rating boost to give them a chance to be read and earn upvotes.
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      It also says you should rewrite things in rust "anyway ;)", not "because it's faster".
- abenedic 8y ago
  Regardless of the person's reaction, they do make a very good point. There is a weird thing that happens when you criticize Rust on HN or Reddit where lots of people jump in to prove that any criticism is invalid. I like Rust well enough. I like C too, I have my issues with both, but when someone does raise an objection it can be hard having people pile on them after. A point of fact is that the two data structures are different. There was even an article on the front page today about how minor changes to data structures can dramatically impact performance. Anyway, my main point is that there should be a space to discuss the relative merits and issues of languages without it resorting to petty fighting, which even you and the OP and the other commenter are engaging in. Please everyone try to use the principle of charity when reading a post on this site. There is a good chance the person you are responding to has a reasonable background and isn't totally ignorant. Instead of playing on pedantry, try to understand where they are coming from and understand a one-off post on an internet forum is not the strongest argument they could make.
  - kibwen 8y ago
    > There is a weird thing that happens when you criticize Rust on HN or Reddit Can I ask where this impression came from? The original, now-downvoted comment that started this thread wasn't criticizing Rust, it was criticizing the article. If people disagree with that person's criticism of the article (which is itself not a criticism of C, and acknowledges as much), I'm afraid I don't see how that contributes to any perception that people are unjustifiably leaping to defend Rust.
    - lossolo 8y ago
      > Can I ask where this impression came from? Are you serious now? I mean you are very active Rust activist on both HN and Reddit and you exactly know what Rust Evangelic Strike Force is and where it came from. I've seen multiple threads on HN and Reddit where people do exactly what OP wrote. I don't know if it's denial or ignorance on your side or you are writing this with premeditation.
      - kibwen 8y ago
dwaltrip 8y ago
The article very clearly calls out the data structure difference. Your statement that they simply are "chalking this up to language differences" is false. It's not surprising that you received a negative reaction.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  Despite the author’s claim that they are not trying to make a comparison, and their lengthy discussion on the details why such a comparison is not apt, we still ended up with a title that suggests a comparison and comments that focus on the two languages in relation to each other.
  - dwaltrip 8y ago
    That is a fair point. The title may be a bit misleading. Although, not entirely, as I'm sure you would agree we can't claim that different data structure is the only reason that the rust program was fast.
    - jblow 8y ago
      Which is exactly why it's a terrible benchmark -- it doesn't tell you anything about what you care about. Which is one reason why it's a terrible article. Another reason is that the author seems to have put a lot more engineering into the Rust program than the C program. Most of the word-count of the article is devoted to extra engineering on the Rust program! (The whole thing about sorting out lumps, etc). It's reasonable to infer that this also mirrors the situation prior to the first benchmark. If you put more effort into optimizing one program than another, you'd expect the higher-effort program to be faster, all else being equal. It's embarrassing that HN thinks this article is worth posting. There might be something to write about here, somewhere, but it would have to be framed in a very different way in order to be honest. Also, it would be a much shorter article.
      - dwaltrip 8y ago
        I don't think the author was claiming that this is a rigorous benchmark, but I can see how it might look that way. I agree that it could have been framed a bit better, but I also don't think the author was trying to make any bold declarations. The technical aspects of the article are interesting and well written, but only if it is not viewed as an exercise in rigorous benchmarking. The context here was that the Rust program was a reimplementation of an existing C program, as part of an effort to learn Rust.