3 ms·

Has Carmack looked at Rust? I'd be very curious for someone like him to look at it in light of his experience with C/C++ and high performance systems.

Ygg2 7y ago
Pretty sure he's aware of it. And honestly I see the logic, Rust has been top of Tech Empower Benchmarks for a while. That said, I think the benchmarks could use some tweaking. I'm not sure they are representative.
- throwthisaway2 7y ago
  Those benchmarks matter little. If by server this topic is a webserver the backend scripts do little. Its your database, caching, and disk manipulation that slows down performance. Most people write bad queries or have a shallow caching strategy. A router redirecting to a controller and parsing a template is hardly different across languages that use the same queries. If you truly need speed for post processong the off load on a c script like queries are off loaded.
jsty 7y ago
He's had a look: https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/ap2047/john_carmack_writing_rust_code_feels_very/ https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/ap2047/john_carmack_w...
- pizlonator 7y ago
  Yeah but I didn’t see anything about perf there. I think it’s a valid point that the reasons why C++ is good for perf - compiled, statically typed, low-level, manual memory management, high degree of control over memory layout - would also apply to Rust. If they don’t then that would really call into question positive claims being made about Rust.
pizlonator 7y ago
Good question, not sure why you were voted down. And I’m not even a Rust fan.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- fatbird 7y ago
  I was curious mainly because I remember some long comments he made about the relative value of linting and static analysis tools, specifically going into Coverity's analysis of the Doom 3 code (I think), fixing everything it flagged for some subset of the code, and then asking himself whether it was really better or more of a hindrance that obfuscated code. IIRC, his conclusion was mixed: a lot of it was obviously beneficial and worth having turned on, but much of it wasn't, and going forward he intended to make it a limited but continual part of his toolchain. So my interest in whether he'd tried Rust was whether he'd compared Rust's changes like the borrow checker against his earlier conclusions on writing good C/C++. Cute that he's tried and liked it, but I'd really like to see a more in-depth comparison from him.
  - pizlonator 7y ago
    Right. He’s got some kind of notorious programming style with who knows what kinds of object graphs. It would be quite a data point to know if he thinks that he can comfortably map it to Rust.

Ygg2 7y ago

Pretty sure he's aware of it. And honestly I see the logic, Rust has been top of Tech Empower Benchmarks for a while. That said, I think the benchmarks could use some tweaking. I'm not sure they are representative.

throwthisaway2 7y ago
Those benchmarks matter little. If by server this topic is a webserver the backend scripts do little. Its your database, caching, and disk manipulation that slows down performance. Most people write bad queries or have a shallow caching strategy. A router redirecting to a controller and parsing a template is hardly different across languages that use the same queries. If you truly need speed for post processong the off load on a c script like queries are off loaded.

jsty 7y ago

He's had a look: https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/ap2047/john_carmack_writing_rust_code_feels_very/ https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/ap2047/john_carmack_w...

pizlonator 7y ago
Yeah but I didn’t see anything about perf there. I think it’s a valid point that the reasons why C++ is good for perf - compiled, statically typed, low-level, manual memory management, high degree of control over memory layout - would also apply to Rust. If they don’t then that would really call into question positive claims being made about Rust.

pizlonator 7y ago

Good question, not sure why you were voted down. And I’m not even a Rust fan.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
fatbird 7y ago
I was curious mainly because I remember some long comments he made about the relative value of linting and static analysis tools, specifically going into Coverity's analysis of the Doom 3 code (I think), fixing everything it flagged for some subset of the code, and then asking himself whether it was really better or more of a hindrance that obfuscated code. IIRC, his conclusion was mixed: a lot of it was obviously beneficial and worth having turned on, but much of it wasn't, and going forward he intended to make it a limited but continual part of his toolchain. So my interest in whether he'd tried Rust was whether he'd compared Rust's changes like the borrow checker against his earlier conclusions on writing good C/C++. Cute that he's tried and liked it, but I'd really like to see a more in-depth comparison from him.
- pizlonator 7y ago
  Right. He’s got some kind of notorious programming style with who knows what kinds of object graphs. It would be quite a data point to know if he thinks that he can comfortably map it to Rust.