4 ms·

This sure has a lot of upmods for zero comments. Nothing against pc, but is this really that spectacular of a blog post? It's like the 10th MagLev response on t

by aston 18y ago

This sure has a lot of upmods for zero comments. Nothing against pc, but is this really that spectacular of a blog post? It's like the 10th MagLev response on the front page lately, and doesn't add too much to the discussion other than a quick comparison to Common LISP.

huhtenberg 18y ago
The hype build-up continues. Note how a friend of MagLev devs points out that it's "up to 60x", which technically could mean anything including "60x for one specific case and 1x for the rest of them". With claims that are this wishy-washy, the only sensible option is to wait for the benchmarks of the public release. Anything else merely fuels the hype machine. (edit) Hmm, interesting .. getting down-modded. I guess independent benchmarking is no longer a preferred way of confirming rather bold vendor claims.
- gojomo 18y ago
  Collison only mentions 'up to 60x' in a parenthetical about Fukamachi's distortions. To note that tiny bit, as if it's a 'wishy-washy' hyped claim (as opposed to just a clarification of the original presentation) is equally distorting. Also, the point of Fukamachi's critics is that the MagLev claims aren't "rather bold" at all, given the well-established performance of other Ruby-like language environments. Some doubt is healthy. Vigorously doubting things well-known to the dynamic languages community is sophomoric.
- stcredzero 18y ago
  You should be skeptical of vendor benchmarks. But being ignorant of how far VM technologies have come and how far Ruby has left to go is not excusable. (Or more importantly, not being self-aware enough to figure out what you don't know, then having the bad luck to get posted on social news.) In any case, most of the time it matters more to programmer's egos now than anything else. CPython is already fast enough for low-level bitwise operations on large amounts of data, provided you are clever with optimizing and you're willing to implement key routines in C. Just look at Mercurial! It's in the same league as Git for speed, and Git is written entirely in C by one of the best C hackers around.
- pc 18y ago
  Note how a friend of MagLev devs points out that it's "up to 60x", which technically could mean anything including "60x for one specific case and 1x for the rest of them" No; you're intentionally distorting things. "Up to 60x" is a quote from Sho's piece, and I just pointed out that he uses this claim inconsistently. Later in the piece, I note that I don't know if MagLev will be even 10x faster when released.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
gojomo 18y ago
The upvotes for this item reflect pent-up demand for downvotes on the original 'naiivety' article.

by aston 18y ago

huhtenberg 18y ago

The hype build-up continues. Note how a friend of MagLev devs points out that it's "up to 60x", which technically could mean anything including "60x for one specific case and 1x for the rest of them". With claims that are this wishy-washy, the only sensible option is to wait for the benchmarks of the public release. Anything else merely fuels the hype machine. (edit) Hmm, interesting .. getting down-modded. I guess independent benchmarking is no longer a preferred way of confirming rather bold vendor claims.

gojomo 18y ago
Collison only mentions 'up to 60x' in a parenthetical about Fukamachi's distortions. To note that tiny bit, as if it's a 'wishy-washy' hyped claim (as opposed to just a clarification of the original presentation) is equally distorting. Also, the point of Fukamachi's critics is that the MagLev claims aren't "rather bold" at all, given the well-established performance of other Ruby-like language environments. Some doubt is healthy. Vigorously doubting things well-known to the dynamic languages community is sophomoric.
stcredzero 18y ago
You should be skeptical of vendor benchmarks. But being ignorant of how far VM technologies have come and how far Ruby has left to go is not excusable. (Or more importantly, not being self-aware enough to figure out what you don't know, then having the bad luck to get posted on social news.) In any case, most of the time it matters more to programmer's egos now than anything else. CPython is already fast enough for low-level bitwise operations on large amounts of data, provided you are clever with optimizing and you're willing to implement key routines in C. Just look at Mercurial! It's in the same league as Git for speed, and Git is written entirely in C by one of the best C hackers around.
pc 18y ago
Note how a friend of MagLev devs points out that it's "up to 60x", which technically could mean anything including "60x for one specific case and 1x for the rest of them" No; you're intentionally distorting things. "Up to 60x" is a quote from Sho's piece, and I just pointed out that he uses this claim inconsistently. Later in the piece, I note that I don't know if MagLev will be even 10x faster when released.

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

gojomo 18y ago

The upvotes for this item reflect pent-up demand for downvotes on the original 'naiivety' article.