3 ms·

It seems like instead of a "silent majority doing intensive calculations" what you're really saying is "I don't think of slower speeds as a performance loss, I

It seems like instead of a "silent majority doing intensive calculations" what you're really saying is "I don't think of slower speeds as a performance loss, I don't pay attention to that, I don't care about slower speeds, my data is small and my programs run almost instantly". If someone says "this isn't really high performance" and you say "I don't personally care, my stuff is small and doesn't take long time to run" that isn't a coherent reply.

bunderbunder 2y ago
It's really more about acknowledging that, unless you're explicitly talking about something like HPC, "high" is a relative term. It quite reasonably means different things to different people in different contexts. In Python I can often improve a task's run time by multiple orders of magnitude, getting its run time from "irritating" to "not really worth thinking about" in the process, just by making sure I'm doing vectorized operations that can make use of SIMD instructions in the appropriate places. That's more than high enough performance for my needs in most cases. A similar situation may be true for the author of this library. I find it to be much less coherent, nearly to the point of knocking down straw men, when people get lost in arguing semantics over a term that we should all know by now is perennially ill-defined.
- CyberDildonics 2y ago
  It's not ill defined to everyone else. If I say my phone is fast but it's nowhere close to the speed of a new phone, no one else would say it's fast. High performance means you show that its speed is competitive against the other fastest programming methods. You labeling something "high performance" because you wrote something slow and made it faster has nothing to do with releasing something and calling it "high performance" publicly.

3 ms·

It seems like instead of a "silent majority doing intensive calculations" what you're really saying is "I don't think of slower speeds as a performance loss, I

by CyberDildonics 2y ago

bunderbunder 2y ago
It's really more about acknowledging that, unless you're explicitly talking about something like HPC, "high" is a relative term. It quite reasonably means different things to different people in different contexts. In Python I can often improve a task's run time by multiple orders of magnitude, getting its run time from "irritating" to "not really worth thinking about" in the process, just by making sure I'm doing vectorized operations that can make use of SIMD instructions in the appropriate places. That's more than high enough performance for my needs in most cases. A similar situation may be true for the author of this library. I find it to be much less coherent, nearly to the point of knocking down straw men, when people get lost in arguing semantics over a term that we should all know by now is perennially ill-defined.
- CyberDildonics 2y ago
  It's not ill defined to everyone else. If I say my phone is fast but it's nowhere close to the speed of a new phone, no one else would say it's fast. High performance means you show that its speed is competitive against the other fastest programming methods. You labeling something "high performance" because you wrote something slow and made it faster has nothing to do with releasing something and calling it "high performance" publicly.