4 ms·

The most recent 10 years and that's exactly the point - we're plateauing on hardware advancements, so software inefficiencies are more of an issue now than ever

The most recent 10 years and that's exactly the point - we're plateauing on hardware advancements, so software inefficiencies are more of an issue now than ever before. 2x is now a huge change in performance. You're not getting that "for free" from just waiting a couple of years anymore.

kaba0 3y ago
You did not take into account my point about code operating on primitives definitely not having that kind of overhead. And even code that does have an overhead is not as simple to judge. Could you write that same code in a lower level language that it will still remain correct and safe? Is the algorithm actually expressible in Rust’s much more restrictive style (to stay safe)? If you do locks and ref counting everywhere, will that code actually be still faster? For example, a compiler might very well be faster in Java/haskell/another managed language.
- kllrnohj 3y ago
  > You did not take into account my point about code operating on primitives definitely not having that kind of overhead. Because it's not really interesting to debate. Nobody writes Java code like that, and even when they do there's still overhead to it. The exact amount of overhead is kinda irrelevant since the language very obviously doesn't want you to write code like that. > Could you write that same code in a lower level language that it will still remain correct and safe? Rust is safer than Java, so yes :) But you're drifting into the productivity argument anyway, which I already pointed out is a reasonable reason to pay runtime overhead to get.
  - kaba0 3y ago
    Plenty of places write Java that way, HFT might be a notable example. Rust has data-race freedom, while java has “safe” data races (it is tear-free, so even in case of a data race you won’t corrupt the memory, which is not true of rust with any number of unsafe parts). So I don’t really buy the argument that Rust would be safer.

kaba0 3y ago

You did not take into account my point about code operating on primitives definitely not having that kind of overhead. And even code that does have an overhead is not as simple to judge. Could you write that same code in a lower level language that it will still remain correct and safe? Is the algorithm actually expressible in Rust’s much more restrictive style (to stay safe)? If you do locks and ref counting everywhere, will that code actually be still faster? For example, a compiler might very well be faster in Java/haskell/another managed language.

kllrnohj 3y ago
> You did not take into account my point about code operating on primitives definitely not having that kind of overhead. Because it's not really interesting to debate. Nobody writes Java code like that, and even when they do there's still overhead to it. The exact amount of overhead is kinda irrelevant since the language very obviously doesn't want you to write code like that. > Could you write that same code in a lower level language that it will still remain correct and safe? Rust is safer than Java, so yes :) But you're drifting into the productivity argument anyway, which I already pointed out is a reasonable reason to pay runtime overhead to get.
- kaba0 3y ago
  Plenty of places write Java that way, HFT might be a notable example. Rust has data-race freedom, while java has “safe” data races (it is tear-free, so even in case of a data race you won’t corrupt the memory, which is not true of rust with any number of unsafe parts). So I don’t really buy the argument that Rust would be safer.