3 ms·
My mistake, I shouldn't have put a number there since that is what you focused on. Rewriting it in assembly is the way to go, but that has other tradeoffs.
by latchkey 1y ago
My mistake, I shouldn't have put a number there since that is what you focused on.
Rewriting it in assembly is the way to go, but that has other tradeoffs.
- dontlaugh 1y agoI’m not focused on a number, I’m just pointing out Go’s optimisation potential is lower than other options. Of course it’s a trade off and their reasons are fine, but rewrites are expensive and disruptive. I would have picked something that can avoid a second rewrite later on.
- latchkey 1y ago[flagged]
- dontlaugh 1y agoI'm well aware of how they're doing it. It makes sense to start with a mostly-automated rewrite, what they confusingly call a "port". But after that step, the end result will be maintained and changed manually. It makes perfect sense to make improvements (including to performance) this way. All I'm questioning is the choice of target, since it excludes some possible future improvements. If you're rewriting (semi-automated or not), it's an opportunity to future-proof as well. I don't understand why you're being so confrontational about mere technical disagreement.
- latchkey 1y agoI'm not disagreeing with you and it is weird that my comment above got flagged given that I'm not attacking you. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- dontlaugh 1y agoI don't know, I didn't flag it. I'm disagreeing with MS's choice and you seemed to disagree with that, even claiming I hadn't read their rewrite plan and reasoning. Doesn't really matter.