3 ms·
It's an interesting interview but also horribly frustrating. There's talk about vectors, longer basic blocks and cache utilization and how they wish programmer
by whizzter 2y ago
It's an interesting interview but also horribly frustrating.
There's talk about vectors, longer basic blocks and cache utilization and how they wish programmers used more of it, it misses the real world.
Regardless of how "hardcore" programmers feel about it, so much real world executed code is built in JS,etc. The JIT:ed code is super-branchy (to cater for deopt fallbacks) and won't use vectors at all.
This is something Apple has gotten correct with their vertical integration as they seem to have put more focus on making real-world code go fast. Even most games will have huge swaths of non-vectorized code that would benefit from a more scalar focused way of optimizing.
Considering transistor counts in use today, instead of bigger vector units,etc it could be spent on bigger UOP buffers, BTB buffers, bigger caches to eat up branchy-but-linear code flows that are reality for less "optimal" languages).
- ahartmetz 2y agoWell. At this point it's much easier to make vectorized code go faster. There is absolutely positively no low-hanging fruit left executing single-threaded, branchy code. A few percent improvement take a huge effort. It's not that they don't want... it's just really difficult and hits diminishing returns.
- Wumpnot 2y agoWhat is the point of making JS go faster? It is already fast enough even on older computers for the stuff it is designed for, making crappy UI.
- eska 2y agoIf you really care about performance, then you should consider using technologies other than js and python, instead of asking hardware vendors to run their implementations faster.
- hulitu 2y ago> Regardless of how "hardcore" programmers feel about it, so much real world executed code is built in JS,etc. After some levels of abstraction, it really doesn't matter how fast the processor is, it will run like crap anyway.