6 ms·

> because of essential constraints of low-level languages that prevent them from doing certain optimisations that matter mostly in large programs Which specifi

> because of essential constraints of low-level languages that prevent them from doing certain optimisations that matter mostly in large programs Which specific optimizations are you referring to? In my experience, this is largely a myth; compared to Rust, you actually get even faster code right away. JIT is effective for languages where the source code lacks sufficient information (dynamic typing, where anything can be null).

pron 19d ago
> Which specific optimizations are you referring to? A JIT with speculative optimisation and a moving GC. There are two constraints in low-level languages that trump any of their performance goals, one technical and one a matter of preference. The technical limitation is that they must use stable pointers (because they need to be low-level and so having an FFI layer that separates "hardware pointers" from "language pointers", as we have in Java defeats their main purpose). This means that you need to translate data storage or code storage to hardware addresses, and that interferes with both moving collection and with JIT compilation. The other constraint is that low-level languages value worst-case performance over the average-case and even amortised performance. These languages prefer an operation (e.g. dynamic dispatch) to be slow as long as it's never too slow. With a JIT (and I describe more later), virtual dispatch can be super-fast almost all the time, but occassionally, you'll hit a trap because the speculation was wrong, and then you need to deoptimise and recompile. > In my experience, this is largely a myth; compared to Rust, you actually get even faster code right away. We wouldn't be doing it in the first place if it was a myth. In a low-level language, you can get very fast code if you do some manual optimisations, but they don't easily scale as the program grows and evolves, because they're viral. The two most basic examples are dynamic dispatch (which is the most general mechanism, which scales the best in terms of program evolution) and shared heap objects (again, the most general mechanism). These become more common and less easily avoided over time, and they're slow in low-level languages because of the constraints I mentioned. That low-level languages make it harder and harder to preserve good performance over time as they evolve and grow is a problem familiar to those who've worked for years on large software written in a low level language (as I have). The JVM was designed, among other things, to solve this performance problem in large programs. > JIT is effective for languages where the source code lacks sufficient information (dynamic typing, where anything can be null). A JIT can make such languages decently fast, but that's not how it's used in Java. In Java it is used for speculative optimisation, which allows far more aggressive optimisation than an AOT compiler can do. E.g. by default, Java inlines and specialises virtual calls 15 levels deep. An AOT compiler can't do that or its code will explode. We get around it with selective use of templates in C++ (or comptime in Zig), but it has to be selective, and it's viral.
- someone_19 19d ago
  Thank you for the reply. Do you mind a reasoned discussion? > A JIT with speculative optimisation and a moving GC. Idiomatic Rust, through its concepts of ownership and borrowing, encourages a pattern where you receive data as an argument or create it directly, perform operations on it, and then discard it via RAII. This bears some resemblance to functional programming. This approach does not apply to buffers of unknown size, which still require heap allocation; unfortunately, Rust lacks automatic buffer reuse. However, such optimization is theoretically possible. The stack is definitely faster than anything else. > This means that you need to translate data storage or code storage to hardware addresses, and that interferes with both moving collection and with JIT compilation. You don't need GC if you allocate data on stack. You also do not need to dereference the pointer. > dynamic dispatch You mentioned templates. In Rust, traits that are monomorphized - much like templates-are the standard approach; using vtables or `dyn trait` is a relatively rare use case. This stems from the fact that all code is known at compile time and there is no dynamic loading, allowing the compiler to eliminate polymorphism from the code entirely. > and shared heap objects This might be considered convenient, but in my view, it also leads to code that is harder to maintain when objects can be modified from multiple places. However, I think that is outside the scope of the current discussion. > We get around it with selective use of templates in C++ (or comptime in Zig), but it has to be selective, and it's viral. Yes, monomorphization is the default solution in Rust. It is not always viral either, because when using it, you often define specific types, and they do not spread beyond that scope. I suppose you could say that the programming style I am talking about is complex, inconvenient, unmaintainable, and so on. What I mean is, assuming this programming style is sufficiently convenient—and perhaps even has its own advantages - then none of the optimizations you listed offer an edge, and the Rust code will definitely be faster.
  - pron 19d ago
    > However, such optimization is theoretically possible. The stack is definitely faster than anything else. What you're describing isn't a stack, but an automatic arena, and this optimisation is easier to do in Java. It's easier to do in Java because it requires setting a "current arena" or inlining, both of which Java can do more easily, and then either the arena will be heap allocated (which will be slower in Rust) or associated with the thread, which is not something low-level languages tend to do. > You don't need GC if you allocate data on stack. You also do not need to dereference the pointer. Moving collectors don't need to dereference anything (they don't know and don't want to know when an object is "dead"), and stack allocation works in both languages, only, as you pointed out, is not quite general (not every data structure with a known lifetime can be allocated on the stack). > You mentioned templates. In Rust, traits that are monomorphized - much like templates-are the standard approach; using vtables or `dyn trait` is a relatively rare use case. This stems from the fact that all code is known at compile time and there is no dynamic loading, allowing the compiler to eliminate polymorphism from the code entirely. Sure, except Java does this automatically, and it can do it more aggressively. Dynamic dispatch is rare in low-level languages because it's expensive in those languages. But it's not easy to avoid as programs get larger. That is exactly one of the problems in large programs that the JVM set out to solve. > This might be considered convenient, but in my view, it also leads to code that is harder to maintain when objects can be modified from multiple places. However, I think that is outside the scope of the current discussion. I agree that whether it has downsides is outside the scope of this discussion, but the point is that as programs evolve and grow, the abstractions tend to be more general, and low-level languages suffer from "abstraction cost", where the more general abstraction (which becomes more common over time) is more expensive. Again, this is exactly why large C++ programs suffered from performance issues and what the JVM tried to address. > Yes, monomorphization is the default solution in Rust. ... and in C++. But it is viral, and Java monomorphises without suffering from "zero overhead abstractions". The ability to move pointers, both to data and to code, opens up the possibility of using JITs and moving GCs, which are very powerful optimisations. A JIT does impose two further tradeoffs (aside from the need for an FFI layer), though, which are warmup and the possibility of deoptimisation. We can now cache the generated machine code from one execution to another (https://openjdk.org/jeps/544 https://openjdk.org/jeps/544), but the possibility of deoptimisation remains (in fact, it's what enables the aggressive speculative optimisations), which means you gain average (or even amortised) performance at the cost of the worst case. Anyway, the JVM was designed as a solution for the performance issues low-level languages suffer from as programs grow and/or evolve. It comes with tradeoffs, but those most affect small or short-lived programs. The thing to remember is that low-level languages are not optimised for performance but for low-level control (i.e. pointers are direct addresses etc.). Such control can translate to good performance when programs are small (see next) but it becomes a practical hindrance to performance when they're large. > I suppose you could say that the programming style I am talking about is complex, inconvenient, unmaintainable, and so on. What I mean is, assuming this programming style is sufficiently convenient—and perhaps even has its own advantages That advantage is a performance advantage. The question isn't "does there exist (in the mathematical sense) some program that is fast?" but "how fast is the program we can write within the budget we have?" When programs are small, manual optimisation is practical; when they grow large - not so much. And that's excluding the matter of a moving collector, which is just hard to compete with on speed regardless of program size, unless you use areans, but they're not at all easy to use in most low-level languages except Zig. > and the Rust code will definitely be faster. This is true only in the abstract mathematical sense. The reason we don't write programs that we want to be fast in Assembly (which is faster than anything in the same sense: for any program in any language, there exists and Assembly program that's at least as fast) is not because other languages are fast enough, but because in practice the programs we can actually write in the budget we have will be faster than the Assembly programs we could write. Of course, that could change when AI is able to generate perfect low-level code, but when that happens, it might as well generate machine code directly.

pron 19d ago

> Which specific optimizations are you referring to? A JIT with speculative optimisation and a moving GC. There are two constraints in low-level languages that trump any of their performance goals, one technical and one a matter of preference. The technical limitation is that they must use stable pointers (because they need to be low-level and so having an FFI layer that separates "hardware pointers" from "language pointers", as we have in Java defeats their main purpose). This means that you need to translate data storage or code storage to hardware addresses, and that interferes with both moving collection and with JIT compilation. The other constraint is that low-level languages value worst-case performance over the average-case and even amortised performance. These languages prefer an operation (e.g. dynamic dispatch) to be slow as long as it's never too slow. With a JIT (and I describe more later), virtual dispatch can be super-fast almost all the time, but occassionally, you'll hit a trap because the speculation was wrong, and then you need to deoptimise and recompile. > In my experience, this is largely a myth; compared to Rust, you actually get even faster code right away. We wouldn't be doing it in the first place if it was a myth. In a low-level language, you can get very fast code if you do some manual optimisations, but they don't easily scale as the program grows and evolves, because they're viral. The two most basic examples are dynamic dispatch (which is the most general mechanism, which scales the best in terms of program evolution) and shared heap objects (again, the most general mechanism). These become more common and less easily avoided over time, and they're slow in low-level languages because of the constraints I mentioned. That low-level languages make it harder and harder to preserve good performance over time as they evolve and grow is a problem familiar to those who've worked for years on large software written in a low level language (as I have). The JVM was designed, among other things, to solve this performance problem in large programs. > JIT is effective for languages where the source code lacks sufficient information (dynamic typing, where anything can be null). A JIT can make such languages decently fast, but that's not how it's used in Java. In Java it is used for speculative optimisation, which allows far more aggressive optimisation than an AOT compiler can do. E.g. by default, Java inlines and specialises virtual calls 15 levels deep. An AOT compiler can't do that or its code will explode. We get around it with selective use of templates in C++ (or comptime in Zig), but it has to be selective, and it's viral.

someone_19 19d ago
Thank you for the reply. Do you mind a reasoned discussion? > A JIT with speculative optimisation and a moving GC. Idiomatic Rust, through its concepts of ownership and borrowing, encourages a pattern where you receive data as an argument or create it directly, perform operations on it, and then discard it via RAII. This bears some resemblance to functional programming. This approach does not apply to buffers of unknown size, which still require heap allocation; unfortunately, Rust lacks automatic buffer reuse. However, such optimization is theoretically possible. The stack is definitely faster than anything else. > This means that you need to translate data storage or code storage to hardware addresses, and that interferes with both moving collection and with JIT compilation. You don't need GC if you allocate data on stack. You also do not need to dereference the pointer. > dynamic dispatch You mentioned templates. In Rust, traits that are monomorphized - much like templates-are the standard approach; using vtables or `dyn trait` is a relatively rare use case. This stems from the fact that all code is known at compile time and there is no dynamic loading, allowing the compiler to eliminate polymorphism from the code entirely. > and shared heap objects This might be considered convenient, but in my view, it also leads to code that is harder to maintain when objects can be modified from multiple places. However, I think that is outside the scope of the current discussion. > We get around it with selective use of templates in C++ (or comptime in Zig), but it has to be selective, and it's viral. Yes, monomorphization is the default solution in Rust. It is not always viral either, because when using it, you often define specific types, and they do not spread beyond that scope. I suppose you could say that the programming style I am talking about is complex, inconvenient, unmaintainable, and so on. What I mean is, assuming this programming style is sufficiently convenient—and perhaps even has its own advantages - then none of the optimizations you listed offer an edge, and the Rust code will definitely be faster.
- pron 19d ago
  > However, such optimization is theoretically possible. The stack is definitely faster than anything else. What you're describing isn't a stack, but an automatic arena, and this optimisation is easier to do in Java. It's easier to do in Java because it requires setting a "current arena" or inlining, both of which Java can do more easily, and then either the arena will be heap allocated (which will be slower in Rust) or associated with the thread, which is not something low-level languages tend to do. > You don't need GC if you allocate data on stack. You also do not need to dereference the pointer. Moving collectors don't need to dereference anything (they don't know and don't want to know when an object is "dead"), and stack allocation works in both languages, only, as you pointed out, is not quite general (not every data structure with a known lifetime can be allocated on the stack). > You mentioned templates. In Rust, traits that are monomorphized - much like templates-are the standard approach; using vtables or `dyn trait` is a relatively rare use case. This stems from the fact that all code is known at compile time and there is no dynamic loading, allowing the compiler to eliminate polymorphism from the code entirely. Sure, except Java does this automatically, and it can do it more aggressively. Dynamic dispatch is rare in low-level languages because it's expensive in those languages. But it's not easy to avoid as programs get larger. That is exactly one of the problems in large programs that the JVM set out to solve. > This might be considered convenient, but in my view, it also leads to code that is harder to maintain when objects can be modified from multiple places. However, I think that is outside the scope of the current discussion. I agree that whether it has downsides is outside the scope of this discussion, but the point is that as programs evolve and grow, the abstractions tend to be more general, and low-level languages suffer from "abstraction cost", where the more general abstraction (which becomes more common over time) is more expensive. Again, this is exactly why large C++ programs suffered from performance issues and what the JVM tried to address. > Yes, monomorphization is the default solution in Rust. ... and in C++. But it is viral, and Java monomorphises without suffering from "zero overhead abstractions". The ability to move pointers, both to data and to code, opens up the possibility of using JITs and moving GCs, which are very powerful optimisations. A JIT does impose two further tradeoffs (aside from the need for an FFI layer), though, which are warmup and the possibility of deoptimisation. We can now cache the generated machine code from one execution to another (https://openjdk.org/jeps/544 https://openjdk.org/jeps/544), but the possibility of deoptimisation remains (in fact, it's what enables the aggressive speculative optimisations), which means you gain average (or even amortised) performance at the cost of the worst case. Anyway, the JVM was designed as a solution for the performance issues low-level languages suffer from as programs grow and/or evolve. It comes with tradeoffs, but those most affect small or short-lived programs. The thing to remember is that low-level languages are not optimised for performance but for low-level control (i.e. pointers are direct addresses etc.). Such control can translate to good performance when programs are small (see next) but it becomes a practical hindrance to performance when they're large. > I suppose you could say that the programming style I am talking about is complex, inconvenient, unmaintainable, and so on. What I mean is, assuming this programming style is sufficiently convenient—and perhaps even has its own advantages That advantage is a performance advantage. The question isn't "does there exist (in the mathematical sense) some program that is fast?" but "how fast is the program we can write within the budget we have?" When programs are small, manual optimisation is practical; when they grow large - not so much. And that's excluding the matter of a moving collector, which is just hard to compete with on speed regardless of program size, unless you use areans, but they're not at all easy to use in most low-level languages except Zig. > and the Rust code will definitely be faster. This is true only in the abstract mathematical sense. The reason we don't write programs that we want to be fast in Assembly (which is faster than anything in the same sense: for any program in any language, there exists and Assembly program that's at least as fast) is not because other languages are fast enough, but because in practice the programs we can actually write in the budget we have will be faster than the Assembly programs we could write. Of course, that could change when AI is able to generate perfect low-level code, but when that happens, it might as well generate machine code directly.