4 ms·

Or, don't, and have your apps still work just fine (and be portable)

by 0xbadcafebee 4y ago

eru 4y ago
Shouldn't you be able to hide that behind a library?
- 0xbadcafebee 4y ago
  You could say that about any software at all. The point is, you don't need to use io_uring. Almost nobody does.
  - eru 4y ago
    No, you can't necessarily say that about any software at all. Eg the style differences between blocking and non-blocking IO are big enough, that it's hard to hide them behind a library.
  - rektide 4y ago
    Ideally support gets built into languages & users just get a free performance boost without even thinking about it. Wouldn't that be great? Bun has io-uring support. Deno issue, https://github.com/denoland/deno/issues/16232 https://github.com/denoland/deno/issues/16232 . Node.js issue with prototype, https://github.com/libuv/libuv/issues/1947 https://github.com/libuv/libuv/issues/1947. Getting good seems interesting & compelling to me. I'm not quite sure where your dislike of this better way of doing things stems from? Even if it does mean changing how we program a bit, to actually go about adopting a better way.
    - eru 4y ago
      > Ideally support gets built into languages [...] Depends on how narrow you want to make your definitions of 'language'. If a library can handle things ergonomically and fast, no need to bake it into the language itself. Eg Perl has regular expressions built in, but Python handles them via a library (arguably it's via the standard library). More drastically: C has a few loops built in, and Haskell handles arbitrary loops via a library and you can build your own new constructs, too. See https://hackage.haskell.org/package/monad-loops-0.4.3/docs/Control-Monad-Loops.html https://hackage.haskell.org/package/monad-loops-0.4.3/docs/C... (Incidentally, that's why Haskell is one of the best imperative languages.)
      - rektide 4y ago
        What languages can we cite that have a stdlib that doesnt include either file io, network io (or if I really want to make the point: syscalls)? I can go first actually, get one answer out of the way. Javascript. But it did evolve network io, and modern JS runtimes almost all include some file/storage io. Im down with a big-language/small-language discussion, but it seems basically beside the point here. I said language, but whether it's the language or libraries doesn't seem materially interesting useful or to alter the basic lay of the discussion of what consuming io-uring may well be like for most (likely: abstracted).
FridgeSeal 4y ago
And so the software that wants faster IO and is prepared to make trade offs should just do what, ignore any potential advantages?
goodpoint 4y ago
Not everbody writes "apps". Some write real software that has heavy I/O requirements, e.g. databases.

Or, don't, and have your apps still work just fine (and be portable)

eru 4y ago

Shouldn't you be able to hide that behind a library?

0xbadcafebee 4y ago
You could say that about any software at all. The point is, you don't need to use io_uring. Almost nobody does.
- eru 4y ago
  No, you can't necessarily say that about any software at all. Eg the style differences between blocking and non-blocking IO are big enough, that it's hard to hide them behind a library.
- rektide 4y ago
  Ideally support gets built into languages & users just get a free performance boost without even thinking about it. Wouldn't that be great? Bun has io-uring support. Deno issue, https://github.com/denoland/deno/issues/16232 https://github.com/denoland/deno/issues/16232 . Node.js issue with prototype, https://github.com/libuv/libuv/issues/1947 https://github.com/libuv/libuv/issues/1947. Getting good seems interesting & compelling to me. I'm not quite sure where your dislike of this better way of doing things stems from? Even if it does mean changing how we program a bit, to actually go about adopting a better way.
  - eru 4y ago
    > Ideally support gets built into languages [...] Depends on how narrow you want to make your definitions of 'language'. If a library can handle things ergonomically and fast, no need to bake it into the language itself. Eg Perl has regular expressions built in, but Python handles them via a library (arguably it's via the standard library). More drastically: C has a few loops built in, and Haskell handles arbitrary loops via a library and you can build your own new constructs, too. See https://hackage.haskell.org/package/monad-loops-0.4.3/docs/Control-Monad-Loops.html https://hackage.haskell.org/package/monad-loops-0.4.3/docs/C... (Incidentally, that's why Haskell is one of the best imperative languages.)
    - rektide 4y ago
      What languages can we cite that have a stdlib that doesnt include either file io, network io (or if I really want to make the point: syscalls)? I can go first actually, get one answer out of the way. Javascript. But it did evolve network io, and modern JS runtimes almost all include some file/storage io. Im down with a big-language/small-language discussion, but it seems basically beside the point here. I said language, but whether it's the language or libraries doesn't seem materially interesting useful or to alter the basic lay of the discussion of what consuming io-uring may well be like for most (likely: abstracted).

FridgeSeal 4y ago

And so the software that wants faster IO and is prepared to make trade offs should just do what, ignore any potential advantages?

goodpoint 4y ago

Not everbody writes "apps". Some write real software that has heavy I/O requirements, e.g. databases.