4 ms·

I'm pretty sure I could make a faster 'printf' but which only supports '%d'. Does that mean 'C is slow'?

• simias 8y ago
  I'd say that printf, with its own DSL, is actually pretty slow. It's meant for debugging or "slow" I/O, if you need to write a lot of data it should be avoided. A few years ago for debugging purposes I wanted to hexdump a large amount of data. Turns out that the standard hexdump tool was pretty slow at it, writing a simple C utility that would format the dump "by hand" instead of using printf was about an order of magnitude faster. You have fully static code instead of the interpreted format string, you can unroll all the formatting, you don't have to rewrite the characters that don't change in every line (spaces, delimiters etc...). It's lightning fast but of course not very flexible.
  • deng 8y ago
    > I'd say that printf, with its own DSL, is actually pretty slow. Yes, of course it is. That's why I took it as an example. Since I work on RealTime systems I usually have to use plain 'write' instead. But that is because 'printf' is an incredibly complex function, not because 'C is slow'.
    • simias 8y ago
      At this point I feel like it's almost a philosophical argument but: - printf is a standard function in C's stdlib. - Because of the nature of the function (using a special purpose format strings and varargs instead of some kind of generic system) the function can't really be aggressively optimized and inlined without compiler magic. This limitation is caused by C's own limitations when it comes to generic programming and type introspection, printf needs to be told explicitly through a "side-channel" (the format string) what types to expect because C lacks the infrastructure to do that by itself. It also means that you can't extend the function for custom types and that you can't type-check the parameters without compiler magic. - Even though some compilers do implement special magic around printf to perform more aggressive optimizations (like replacing it with "puts" if there's no formatting going on for instance) it's still generally trivial to beat its performance in non-trivial case with handwritten code. Given all of the above I would say that makes this particular corner of C rather slow indeed. Or at least slower than it might be compared to an hypothetical language that made it easier to optimize string formatting.
      • skrebbel 8y ago
        You're entirely right, but I feel like you're trying really hard to misunderstand deng's original comment. It's an apt analogy, partly because of what you wrote. This article's title is as ridiculous as an article titled "Is C fast?" with a story about a faster_printf that only supports %d.
  • ghettoimp 8y ago
    It's been a long time since I've done C++. I wonder if int x; cout << x; ought to be faster than printf("%d", x), by virtue of knowing the types ahead of time?
    • octo_t 8y ago
      If it weren't for locales, probably yes ;P
    • smitherfield 8y ago
      Yes, but only if you first call ios::sync_with_stdio(false); https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/io/ios_base/sync_with_stdio https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/io/ios_base/sync_with_stdi...
    • Someone 8y ago
      Pedantic: No. If you write #include “studio.h” int x; printf(“%d”, x); the compiler knows the types ahead of time, too, so that cannot explain any speed difference (and yes, C compilers do try to avoid the generic printf in the library. See http://www.ciselant.de/projects/gcc_printf/gcc_printf.html http://www.ciselant.de/projects/gcc_printf/gcc_printf.html for examples) (The #include is essential. With it, the compiler can know what printf does, and, in theory, optimize it to a int-to-string conversion and a puts system call. Without it, it cannot, because it doesn’t know what the printf function does (in this case, it is easier to generate fast code for the compiler if it doesn’t have the source available than when it would see source code for a function called printf) Utterly pedantic: no. As given, both are undefined behavior, and it is trivial for a compiler to discover that.
      • tom_mellior 8y ago
        > and yes, C compilers do try to avoid the generic printf in the library That is true for certain format strings (containing only %s or %c conversions), but for %d GCC and Clang don't seem to want to call a print_int function, possibly because there is none: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/rltFse https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/rltFse
• throwawaymath 8y ago
  No, not at all! At least not in an absolute sense. But what I mean is that writing in C naturally tends towards writing more special-purpose, bespoke functions because you can't lean on the existing, general-purpose functions of C++ (nor language features). I agree with you about the title, but I also think that if you fix the title the author is making a good point. It's not groundbreaking, but the move "down" from C++ to C does run parallel with the move from more general purpose to more special purpose, in a lot of ways. C dominates embedded after all.
• chriswitts 8y ago
  You could check out Nanolog [1] for inspiration. [1] https://github.com/PlatformLab/NanoLog https://github.com/PlatformLab/NanoLog