4 ms·
> Simple point: Adding optimizations doesn't speed C++ compilers up faster than having do those optimizations slows them down. Well that's an obvious point. >
by higerordermap 6y ago
> Simple point: Adding optimizations doesn't speed C++ compilers up faster than having do those optimizations slows them down.
Well that's an obvious point.
> Solution, stop using C++ for anything.
We can't, realistically.
I know rust is great in many aspects. I know lot of software in C++ can be written better even in an AOT'd GC language with equal or better performance, because of so many C++ performance pitfalls that appear at scale.
But we can't throw away all the code already written. There is lot of talent pool for C++. And the supposedly better languages have non existent talent pool. (Go doesn't count, such a boilerplate language hampers any readability at scale).
- ncmncm 6y agoI wonder what these "performance pitfalls at scale" are, that other languages succeed in avoiding. Normally such an expression would refer to abstraction overhead, but this is where C++ excels. Cache nonlinearities, with pipeline stalls and branch prediction failures, affect all languages. Control of memory footprint is essential to avoiding those, but C++ exceeds others there, too.