3 ms·

There, however, is something stopping Go from using optimizations present in Java or C#/C++/Rust. This is lack of SIMD API without dropping to hand writing ASM

There, however, is something stopping Go from using optimizations present in Java or C#/C++/Rust. This is lack of SIMD API without dropping to hand writing ASM and overall much weaker compiler. This puts much greater burden on the programmer to match the performance while staying with Go.

hnlmorg 3y ago
> There, however, is something stopping Go from using optimizations present in Java or C#/C++/Rust ... > This puts much greater burden on the programmer to match the performance while staying with Go. Your second statement contradicts your first. You're not stopped from using SIMD in Go. There are in fact several 3rd party libraries out there to use SIMD. It's just not part of the standard library. So you can still use SIMD in Go without writing Go's dialect of assembly. It's also worth noting that SIMD isn't even due to drop into std in C++ until C++26. At the moment you either have to use experimental or a 3rd party library. You're also missing the point of these examples. Nobody writing these exercises are trying to claim that all languages are equal. And they certainly not trying to write idiomatic code either. They're just fun little exercises demonstrating the degree of optimisations one can go through. You wouldn't want to write code like those in the examples in all but a the tiniest of scenarios. It's silly the amount of people over-analysing this, what is essentially just a game, and then arguing its "proof" about their biases towards different programming languages.