4 ms·

FIl-C, the new memory-safe C/C++ compiler actually achieved that through introducing a GC, with that in mind I'd say D was kind of a misunderstood prodigy in re

by fuhsnn 8mo ago

FIl-C, the new memory-safe C/C++ compiler actually achieved that through introducing a GC, with that in mind I'd say D was kind of a misunderstood prodigy in retrospect.

rafaelmn 8mo ago
There's two classes of programs - stuff written in C for historic reasons that could have been written in higher level language but rewrite is too expensive - fill c. Stuff where you need low level - Rust/C++/Zig
- brabel 8mo ago
  FillC works fine with all C code no matter how low level. There’s a small performance overhead but for almost every scenario it’s an acceptable overhead!
  - jibal 8mo ago
    up to 5x is not what most people mean by small.
    - arcadia_leak 8mo ago
      Depends on what the multiplicand is.
      - jibal 8mo ago
        Not really.
    - brabel 8mo ago
      For most apps it’s much less than that and in most cases it’s unnoticeable. I think it would be more productive if you could point out an app that has noticeably worse performance on FillC, so that the cause for that could be looked at and perhaps even fixed, so that eventually there would be neatly zero examples like that.
      - jibal 8mo ago
        The fact that inserting runtime checks and doing garbage collecting slows things down is not a bug, not something that needs to be fixed. As for "I think it would be move productive if you ...", that's just rude. I wasn't criticizing Fil-C, just pointing out an inaccuracy.
        brabel 8mo ago
        You did not point out any inaccuracy, you literally made baseless comment about it being "up to 5 times" slower without providing an example where that's the case. "That's just rude" - oh my, never though asking for evidence of a performance problem on HN would be "rude". And yes, if something is actually 5x slower, it's very likely a performance bug that can be fixed, as FillC's author has made it clear in several opportunities.
        jibal 8mo ago
        > you literally made baseless comment It's sad that people lie here. It's commonly recognized that programs run 1.5-5 times slower. > if something is actually 5x slower, it's very likely a performance bug that can be fixed, as FillC's author has made it clear in several opportunities. Another lie from someone who doesn't even know what the program is called.
- uecker 8mo ago
  Na, there are only three classes: stuff where you need simplicity, fast compilation times, portability, interoperability with legacy systems, or high-performance - C. Stuff where you need perfect memory safety: Fil-C. And stuff where you need a combination: C + formal verification. Not sure where I would Rust/C++/Zig (none of those offers perfect memory safety in practice)

by fuhsnn 8mo ago

FIl-C, the new memory-safe C/C++ compiler actually achieved that through introducing a GC, with that in mind I'd say D was kind of a misunderstood prodigy in retrospect.

rafaelmn 8mo ago

There's two classes of programs - stuff written in C for historic reasons that could have been written in higher level language but rewrite is too expensive - fill c. Stuff where you need low level - Rust/C++/Zig

brabel 8mo ago
FillC works fine with all C code no matter how low level. There’s a small performance overhead but for almost every scenario it’s an acceptable overhead!
- jibal 8mo ago
  up to 5x is not what most people mean by small.
  - arcadia_leak 8mo ago
    Depends on what the multiplicand is.
    - jibal 8mo ago
      Not really.
  - brabel 8mo ago
    For most apps it’s much less than that and in most cases it’s unnoticeable. I think it would be more productive if you could point out an app that has noticeably worse performance on FillC, so that the cause for that could be looked at and perhaps even fixed, so that eventually there would be neatly zero examples like that.
    - jibal 8mo ago
      The fact that inserting runtime checks and doing garbage collecting slows things down is not a bug, not something that needs to be fixed. As for "I think it would be move productive if you ...", that's just rude. I wasn't criticizing Fil-C, just pointing out an inaccuracy.
      - brabel 8mo ago
        You did not point out any inaccuracy, you literally made baseless comment about it being "up to 5 times" slower without providing an example where that's the case. "That's just rude" - oh my, never though asking for evidence of a performance problem on HN would be "rude". And yes, if something is actually 5x slower, it's very likely a performance bug that can be fixed, as FillC's author has made it clear in several opportunities.
      - jibal 8mo ago
        > you literally made baseless comment It's sad that people lie here. It's commonly recognized that programs run 1.5-5 times slower. > if something is actually 5x slower, it's very likely a performance bug that can be fixed, as FillC's author has made it clear in several opportunities. Another lie from someone who doesn't even know what the program is called.
uecker 8mo ago
Na, there are only three classes: stuff where you need simplicity, fast compilation times, portability, interoperability with legacy systems, or high-performance - C. Stuff where you need perfect memory safety: Fil-C. And stuff where you need a combination: C + formal verification. Not sure where I would Rust/C++/Zig (none of those offers perfect memory safety in practice)