3 ms·
> Very little of your code is in hot loops. Very few programs have "hot loops" as small, contained things. "hot loops" is at this point as much of a bad trope
by kllrnohj 4y ago
> Very little of your code is in hot loops.
Very few programs have "hot loops" as small, contained things. "hot loops" is at this point as much of a bad trope as "but premature optimizations!" is.
> Why does that count as ten thousand cuts rather than one cut? That doesn't sound intractable to fix if you have months.
Why spend months re-writing code you could have just written correctly the first time if a single person had spent an hour messing around with benchmarks to figure out the proper guidance?
- Dylan16807 4y ago> Very few programs have "hot loops" as small, contained things. "hot loops" is at this point as much of a bad trope as "but premature optimizations!" is. If you say so. I can pretty easily and meaningfully divide my current program into "happens once per frame or less" and "happens hundreds or more times in a row". > Why spend months re-writing code you could have just written correctly the first time if a single person had spent an hour messing around with benchmarks to figure out the proper guidance? If they could have figured it out that easily I understand even less how this example works. Let me put it this way: If a benchmark can change huge swaths of significantly performance important code, then it's "hot enough to bother" by orders of magnitude. I thought we were talking about microbenchmarks for individual cuts!