4 ms·
> Nobody really thinks Rust is faster than C now. The submission title would beg to differ. (I know, it explicitly calls out "benchmarks" as the context.) I
by vitus 6y ago
> Nobody really thinks Rust is faster than C now.
The submission title would beg to differ.
(I know, it explicitly calls out "benchmarks" as the context.)
I think languages like Rust or Swift have significant advantages around safety over C/C++, while not sacrificing much in terms of performance. But if one language's benchmark contributors are willing to put in more effort than another's to eke out additional performance, then you're going to see skewed results in favor of whichever has the more fervent evangelists or whichever language has more to prove.
If the goal is to compare performance of two languages which can express the same optimization in exactly the same way, and only one uses it, then the benchmarks fail in that respect.
- gameswithgo 6y agogo fix the c implementation then. no single person can maintain optimally implemented solutions over dozens of languages. its up to we the people to help out. you want perfectly equivalent comparisons, make it happen
- wang_li 6y agoYeah. At a fundamental level these programs are running on the same hardware. Unless you’ve an ultra simplistic language (basic or logo), one could implement identical algorithms and methodologies and techniques and get the same performance.
- platinumrad 6y agoI don't want perfectly equivalent comparisons. I want people to stop citing this set of imperfect ones as if they mean anything.