5 ms·
>Just toss a 0.01ms I/O operation in those loops; it will throw the numbers off by a large margin, then one would just rather pick sanity over the speed gains w
by _dain_ 4y ago
>Just toss a 0.01ms I/O operation in those loops; it will throw the numbers off by a large margin, then one would just rather pick sanity over the speed gains without blinking.
I mean, yes, if you do something completely fucking idiotic like put an IO operation inside a tight calculation loop, then all your speed gains will vanish. But I don't see how that refutes anything.
- fer 4y agoI said I/O, but it could be memory access. All he does fits in registers and maybe cache. Also, 0.01ms was the normal RAM latency when I started using computers... Do you remember the last time you had to do a tight calculation loop, and not only that, but one that significantly impacted the total runtime? Personally I do, it was roughly 15 years ago writing a raytracer. I can imagine that happening in game/3D dev, DSP, emulators, ML, and maybe some other types of software, but even in those cases one already has dedicated libraries and hardware to extract the performance from where it can be extracted. I mean, Python is slow as an old dog, yet it gets most of the ML fun.
- mtrower 4y ago> All he does fits in registers and maybe cache. Well yes, that's.. actually the point. Indirectly, anyway anyway. > I mean, Python is slow as an old dog, yet it gets most of the ML fun. Python driving some UI and logic, with a ton of optimized Fortran and C driving everything hot.