4 ms·

I think the more germane question is whether or not Rust is in any sense modern on hardware architectures that have changed their 5 year outlook twice in the pa

I think the more germane question is whether or not Rust is in any sense modern on hardware architectures that have changed their 5 year outlook twice in the past three? 2nm with tiles and backplane power is already a radically different landscape than AMD’s current leading edge big-L3, high-core arch. The fucking arrogance. It is not the world’s job to accommodate Rust. It’s C’s job to work out whether Rust works out or not.

mwcampbell 4y ago
This seems to be a total non-sequitur from the previous comment. What does this have to do with arenas versus other memory allocation strategies? And in what way are hardware architectures being expected to accommodate Rust?
- benreesman 4y ago
  For as long as sequential locality is the order of the day, bump allocators are on average going to stomp stack/heap dichotomies like C++ or Rust. By huge, huge, constant factors. I’m proposing Jai (and John) as plausibly more in touch with a rapidly-changing hardware landscape than Rust by definition practically ever could be without another round of pre-1.0 “everything is broken always”. Were you earnestly asking that question in good faith because you didn’t read the multiple siblings about Jai and arenas vs affine? Or are you just part of the gang tackle?
  - mwcampbell 4y ago
    > Were you earnestly asking that question in good faith Yes, because although I read the whole thread, I didn't get the connection between arenas and the rapidly changing hardware landscape. Now I want to learn more. And, as someone who merely uses Rust in some projects and thinks it's likely to be the least bad alternative for some others, I have no problem contemplating that Rust might have chosen a suboptimal default allocation style. I think the borrow checker is still a good thing though, and don't understand how it could be fully replaced by arena allocation.

mwcampbell 4y ago

This seems to be a total non-sequitur from the previous comment. What does this have to do with arenas versus other memory allocation strategies? And in what way are hardware architectures being expected to accommodate Rust?

benreesman 4y ago
For as long as sequential locality is the order of the day, bump allocators are on average going to stomp stack/heap dichotomies like C++ or Rust. By huge, huge, constant factors. I’m proposing Jai (and John) as plausibly more in touch with a rapidly-changing hardware landscape than Rust by definition practically ever could be without another round of pre-1.0 “everything is broken always”. Were you earnestly asking that question in good faith because you didn’t read the multiple siblings about Jai and arenas vs affine? Or are you just part of the gang tackle?
- mwcampbell 4y ago
  > Were you earnestly asking that question in good faith Yes, because although I read the whole thread, I didn't get the connection between arenas and the rapidly changing hardware landscape. Now I want to learn more. And, as someone who merely uses Rust in some projects and thinks it's likely to be the least bad alternative for some others, I have no problem contemplating that Rust might have chosen a suboptimal default allocation style. I think the borrow checker is still a good thing though, and don't understand how it could be fully replaced by arena allocation.