11 ms·

> And probably, that reason is performance. That's the first problem I see with the article. C++ isn't a fast language, as it is. There are far too many issues

> And probably, that reason is performance. That's the first problem I see with the article. C++ isn't a fast language, as it is. There are far too many issues with e.g. aliasing rules, lack of proper vectorization (for the runtime arch), etc. If you wish to have a relatively good performance for your code, try ISPC, which still allows you to get great performance with vectorization up to AVX-512, without turning to intrisics.

chipdart 3y ago
> That's the first problem I see with the article. C++ isn't a fast language, as it is. There are far too many issues with e.g. aliasing rules, lack of proper vectorization (for the runtime arch), etc. That's a bold statement due to the way it heavily contrasts with reality. C++ is ever present in high performance benchmarks as either the highest performing language or second only to C. It's weird seeing someone claim with a straight face that "C++ isn't a fast language, as it is". To make matters worse, you go on confusing what a programming language is, and confusing implementation details with language features. It's like claiming that C++ isn't a language for computational graphics just because no C++ standard dedicates a chapter to it. Just like every engineering domain,you need to have deep knowledge on details to milk the last drop of performance improvements out of a program. Low-latency C++ is a testament of how the smallest details can be critical of performance. But you need to be completely detached from reality to claim that C++ isn't a fast language.
- kookamamie 3y ago
  > That's a bold statement due to the way it heavily contrasts with reality. I'm ready to back this up. And no, I'm not confusing things - I work in HPC (realtime computer vision) and in reality the only thing we'd use C++ for is "glue", i.e. binding implementations of the actual algorithms implemented in other languages together. Implementations could be e.g. in CUDA, ISPC, neural-inference via TensorRT, etc.
  - jpc0 3y ago
    "We use extreme vectorisation and can't do it in native C++ therefore the language is slow" You a junior or something? For 99% of use cases C++ autovectorisation does plenty and will outperform the same code written in higher level languages. You are literally in the 1% and conflating your use case for that of the general case...
  - chipdart 3y ago
    I've worked in computer vision and real time image processing. We use C++ extensively in the field due to it's high performance. OpenCV is the tool of the trade. Both iOS and Android support C++ modules for performance reasons. But to add to all the nonsense,you claim otherwise. Frankly, your comments lack any credibility, which is confirmed by your lame appeal to authority.

chipdart 3y ago

> That's the first problem I see with the article. C++ isn't a fast language, as it is. There are far too many issues with e.g. aliasing rules, lack of proper vectorization (for the runtime arch), etc. That's a bold statement due to the way it heavily contrasts with reality. C++ is ever present in high performance benchmarks as either the highest performing language or second only to C. It's weird seeing someone claim with a straight face that "C++ isn't a fast language, as it is". To make matters worse, you go on confusing what a programming language is, and confusing implementation details with language features. It's like claiming that C++ isn't a language for computational graphics just because no C++ standard dedicates a chapter to it. Just like every engineering domain,you need to have deep knowledge on details to milk the last drop of performance improvements out of a program. Low-latency C++ is a testament of how the smallest details can be critical of performance. But you need to be completely detached from reality to claim that C++ isn't a fast language.

kookamamie 3y ago
> That's a bold statement due to the way it heavily contrasts with reality. I'm ready to back this up. And no, I'm not confusing things - I work in HPC (realtime computer vision) and in reality the only thing we'd use C++ for is "glue", i.e. binding implementations of the actual algorithms implemented in other languages together. Implementations could be e.g. in CUDA, ISPC, neural-inference via TensorRT, etc.
- jpc0 3y ago
  "We use extreme vectorisation and can't do it in native C++ therefore the language is slow" You a junior or something? For 99% of use cases C++ autovectorisation does plenty and will outperform the same code written in higher level languages. You are literally in the 1% and conflating your use case for that of the general case...
- chipdart 3y ago
  I've worked in computer vision and real time image processing. We use C++ extensively in the field due to it's high performance. OpenCV is the tool of the trade. Both iOS and Android support C++ modules for performance reasons. But to add to all the nonsense,you claim otherwise. Frankly, your comments lack any credibility, which is confirmed by your lame appeal to authority.