3 ms·

> … hard to take seriously… Even when we're shown "Benchmarks are a crock" ? https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/sometimes-people-just

• pclmulqdq 4y ago
  I think we're in agreement here. Personally, I was really looking forward to seeing "we rewrote our database in Rust from C++ and QPS improved 5% because fast code was easier to write." This kind of benchmark is not BS, and actually would save you real money. Instead, the main arguments for the claim that Rust is the same speed as C++ are microbenchmarks, which actually are pretty useless when you are comparing very different implementations. The time they are useful is when you are refining an implementation. If you want to scrutinize the benchmarks game even further, they use gcc for their c compiler, where clang would probably be a better choice since the benchmarks are arithmetic-heavy.
  • nequo 4y ago
    When you get sufficiently close to the metal, the performance gains seem to be coming from better algorithms rather than from the programming language. Like you are saying: > The reasons for these gaps can include things like it being harder to use the optimal data structure for your application (eg C code using red-black trees instead of btrees in 2023) Bryan Cantrill described this experience[1] and maybe that is exactly what you are referring to. But if you're just looking for a language to get work done with, does it matter if Rust is faster because of better off-the-shelf data structures and algorithms or because of some inherent magic in the programming language? [1] See point 9 here: http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2018/09/18/falling-in-love-with-rust/ http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2018/09/18/falling-in-love-with-...
    • pclmulqdq 4y ago
      Yes, because my current alternative (modern C++ with Folly/Absl) provides those data structures already, so there's no real benefit to using the new thing.
      • nequo 4y ago
        That's great for you! Then stick with your current setup. I don't already know C++. For me, learning Rust is easier than learning safe C++. I imagine that there are many people in a similar situation for whom Rust makes more sense than C++. That doesn't mean that it makes more sense for everyone.
  • igouy 4y ago
    > This kind of benchmark is not BS, and actually would save you real money. And would cost someone else real money to do — so microbenchmarks ;-) > … they use gcc for their c compiler, where clang would probably be a better choice… https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/fastest/c.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
    • pclmulqdq 4y ago
      Cool, I didn't realize that gcc was actually performing better than clang in the examples I saw.