5 ms·

I'm not sure how you get from 50% slowdown to fast. That's my point - in the space of ahead-of-time compiled, statically typed languages Go produces code that r

I'm not sure how you get from 50% slowdown to fast. That's my point - in the space of ahead-of-time compiled, statically typed languages Go produces code that runs significantly slower than other languages. Even if you include JITCd languages it's not that fast. It's an intentional choice, so I really don't even know why this is proving controversial - Go's designers were always crystal clear that their priorities are: 1. A fast AOT compiler (which therefore, cannot spend much time optimizing things) 2. A low latency GC (which therefore, sacrifices throughput) 3. Ease of use (which therefore, means avoiding complicating the language with optimization related features) Not included: raw performance.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
37ef_ced3 5y ago
Because there's a point where additional performance doesn't matter. Using C instead of Go is a mistake for all but the most performance critical applications. Use C for small pieces of code that need maximum performance. Use Go everywhere else. If you're writing a compiler, use Go: it's easily fast enough and very programmer-efficient. If you're writing SIMD convolution code, use C. For example, here is my compiler (written in Go) that generates AVX-512 neural net convolution code in C: https://NN-512.com https://NN-512.com For almost all purposes, Go is a better choice than C. Go is almost always fast enough by a wide margin, and the resulting program is easier to write and higher quality.
Mawr 5y ago
> I'm not sure how you get from 50% slowdown to fast. A mere 50% slowdown over C given Go's ergonomics? That's amazing. Although, you and the parent are talking about different things. He didn't say "Go is 50% slower than C" he said well written Go is up to 50% slower than well written C. I'd expect average Go code to be 100%+ slower than average C code, which is likely what you're talking about. > That's my point - in the space of ahead-of-time compiled, statically typed languages Go produces code that runs significantly slower than other languages. That's not the space Go is in. You forgot a huge factor - memory management. Go has a GC and therefore is not anywhere near the same space as C/Rust/C++. Thus, such comparisons are inherently flawed - Go isn't competing on speed with C/Rust/C++, but with Java/C#.
- vegai_ 5y ago
  >I'd expect average Go code to be 100%+ slower than average C code Sorry to nitpick, but that means the Go code will never complete.
- native_samples 5y ago
  I didn't forget memory management, point 2 in my list is about the tradeoffs involved in GC. What you and 37ef_ced3 are giving me here is a list of reasons why it's OK for Go to be slow or at least slower than C++, which is fine. Go inhabits a particular point in the design space and it balances performance against other factors - great. My beef was with the statement that Go is known to be "unusually both fast and easy". It's not known for that. It's known to be a sort of middle-ground jack of all trades. If someone told me they were using Go because it was fast, I would think they didn't know much about programming languages, or I'd have to read a lot of context into what they were saying (maybe they only had experience with Python before, as is the case for many Go programmers).
edwnj 5y ago
I don't think your point is controversial, its just missing context. Having a language that can hold its own weight in the AOT, statically typed world while also having the UX thats comparable to javascript is insane. Rust, C/C++ is a last resort, your'd only touch it if you absolutely need it. To have a language with better UX than Java, C#, Python etc. that greatly expands how far you can go without resorting to C/C++ is super kewl!

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

37ef_ced3 5y ago

Because there's a point where additional performance doesn't matter. Using C instead of Go is a mistake for all but the most performance critical applications. Use C for small pieces of code that need maximum performance. Use Go everywhere else. If you're writing a compiler, use Go: it's easily fast enough and very programmer-efficient. If you're writing SIMD convolution code, use C. For example, here is my compiler (written in Go) that generates AVX-512 neural net convolution code in C: https://NN-512.com https://NN-512.com For almost all purposes, Go is a better choice than C. Go is almost always fast enough by a wide margin, and the resulting program is easier to write and higher quality.

Mawr 5y ago

> I'm not sure how you get from 50% slowdown to fast. A mere 50% slowdown over C given Go's ergonomics? That's amazing. Although, you and the parent are talking about different things. He didn't say "Go is 50% slower than C" he said well written Go is up to 50% slower than well written C. I'd expect average Go code to be 100%+ slower than average C code, which is likely what you're talking about. > That's my point - in the space of ahead-of-time compiled, statically typed languages Go produces code that runs significantly slower than other languages. That's not the space Go is in. You forgot a huge factor - memory management. Go has a GC and therefore is not anywhere near the same space as C/Rust/C++. Thus, such comparisons are inherently flawed - Go isn't competing on speed with C/Rust/C++, but with Java/C#.

vegai_ 5y ago
>I'd expect average Go code to be 100%+ slower than average C code Sorry to nitpick, but that means the Go code will never complete.
native_samples 5y ago
I didn't forget memory management, point 2 in my list is about the tradeoffs involved in GC. What you and 37ef_ced3 are giving me here is a list of reasons why it's OK for Go to be slow or at least slower than C++, which is fine. Go inhabits a particular point in the design space and it balances performance against other factors - great. My beef was with the statement that Go is known to be "unusually both fast and easy". It's not known for that. It's known to be a sort of middle-ground jack of all trades. If someone told me they were using Go because it was fast, I would think they didn't know much about programming languages, or I'd have to read a lot of context into what they were saying (maybe they only had experience with Python before, as is the case for many Go programmers).

edwnj 5y ago

I don't think your point is controversial, its just missing context. Having a language that can hold its own weight in the AOT, statically typed world while also having the UX thats comparable to javascript is insane. Rust, C/C++ is a last resort, your'd only touch it if you absolutely need it. To have a language with better UX than Java, C#, Python etc. that greatly expands how far you can go without resorting to C/C++ is super kewl!