3 ms·

Yes. But "we" also include the c/c++/rust developers here. This is a puzzle that is hard to crack. WHY "system language" developers near always produce the M

by mamcx 6y ago

Yes. But "we" also include the c/c++/rust developers here. This is a puzzle that is hard to crack. WHY "system language" developers near always produce the MOST slow languages on earth (C, C++, Rust, ....). And given time, CONTINUE to keep everything wrong with them? C/C++/rust are among the slowest languages in actual use today. Is kinda ironic them claim to build "fast" stuff and the tool, itself, is slow like hell. Is even more sad considering that Pascal mop the floor with everything, decades ago, and still do. > I believe there is more to it than that. I believe it's more of a human problem than an algorithmic one. Totally. Somehow, the C/C++ mindset can't build fast languages, not matter how many decades of wasted compile times are behind us. Is uber funny that you read how certain dude spend A LOT of effort optimizing his code to get a few nanoseconds here and there for the project is building, but somehow, the same love is not give for our core tools. Is funny that that guy is also me. I waste DAYS trying to cut the build times of my pipeline. DAYS. Rust is the ONLY lang in this 20 years that make me do busy work of that kind. BTW, I have used more than other +12 -- Before get angry, remember that Pascal, ADA, Go, exist. And them are orders of magnitude faster than C/C++/Rust. This is not a problem of "but c/rust do that stuff and must be slow", no... is because them, BY DESIGN, are suboptimal tools. -- Then why you use rust? Because, in contrast with C/C++, at least give a lot of extra benefits that are not present elsewhere (with the exception of ADA). We can love AND hate something, at the same time. Funny humans.

mmm_grayons 6y ago
The systems languages you reference have to do memory management by design. It's very difficult to write a scalable, maintainable, performant operating system or high-performance application in Pasca, ADA, or Golang. While they are all decent, I'm referring to "low-level" as in device drivers or "high-performance" as in game engines. Aside from some toy microcontrollers running go or some userland fuchsia stuff, there's a reason serious stuff still uses those languages. They're slow because they intentionally trade compile time for run-time performance. If I write in such a language, I've got a pretty good idea of how it will run; I don't have to worry about "Oh no, what's the GC gonna do now."
- mamcx 6y ago
  Pascal, ADA not have GC. And C/C++/Rust not have GC... and still ARE slow to compile.

by mamcx 6y ago

mmm_grayons 6y ago

The systems languages you reference have to do memory management by design. It's very difficult to write a scalable, maintainable, performant operating system or high-performance application in Pasca, ADA, or Golang. While they are all decent, I'm referring to "low-level" as in device drivers or "high-performance" as in game engines. Aside from some toy microcontrollers running go or some userland fuchsia stuff, there's a reason serious stuff still uses those languages. They're slow because they intentionally trade compile time for run-time performance. If I write in such a language, I've got a pretty good idea of how it will run; I don't have to worry about "Oh no, what's the GC gonna do now."

mamcx 6y ago
Pascal, ADA not have GC. And C/C++/Rust not have GC... and still ARE slow to compile.