4 ms·
> you often lose several-folds due to going with a simpler parallelism model for fear of Segfaults, which you could fearlessly do in a higher-level language. W
by monkeyelite 1y ago
> you often lose several-folds due to going with a simpler parallelism model for fear of Segfaults, which you could fearlessly do in a higher-level language.
Wait - what was that part about Amdahl's law?
Also segfaults are unrelated to parallelism.
- gf000 1y agoAmdahl's law was about the potential speedup from going parallel being limited by parts that must be serial. Nothing controversial here - many tasks can be parallelized just fine. My point is that you often see a simpler algorithm/data structure in C for fear of a memory issue/not getting some edge case right. What part are you disagreeing with? That parallel code has more gotchas, that make a footgun-y language even more prone to failures?