3 ms·

> And neither of those is a microbenchmark thing, which is kind of my point. I'm surprised language would hurt that much... The point I'm making here is that e

by klyrs 4y ago

> And neither of those is a microbenchmark thing, which is kind of my point. I'm surprised language would hurt that much... The point I'm making here is that every line matters -- not just the hotspots. If you're suprised that language can have that much impact, perhaps it's time to learn a bit about performance issues that you're being dismissive of? > I don't think people are talking about 2004 when they talk about the responsiveness of ancient software on ancient hardware. No, I was responding to your mention of a 500x improvement in hardware. That pipedream ended in the early 00s, and people still talk like Moore's law will absolve their inattentive coding practice. And that felt fine in the decades we went from kHz to GHz, but it's unacceptable today.

Dylan16807 4y ago
> The point I'm making here is that every line matters -- not just the hotspots. That depends on how it would have performed if you only transformed the hottest 10% into C. But I was mainly responding to the idea that micro-optimizations are needed to keep general software snappy, and I don't think they are. If one language is that much faster, that's not micro-optimization. > No, I was responding to your mention of a 500x improvement in hardware. What do you mean "No"? I was talking about current hardware being 500x faster than 1988 hardware, which it is. If that's not what you meant by "ancient software on ancient hardware", fine, but that's what my 500x was talking about. > people still talk like Moore's law will absolve their inattentive coding practice I'm not trying to excuse inattentive coding. I'm trying to say certain kinds of attention are important and others aren't.