| ▲ | josephg 2 hours ago | |
Honestly I'm not quite sure what point you're making. > If he needed his app to be 30% faster he would have made it so Would he have? Improving performance by 30% usually isn't so easy. Especially not in a codebase which (according to Cantrill) was pretty well optimized already. The performance boost came to him as a surprise. As I remember the story, he had already made the C code pretty fast and didn't realise his C hash table implementation could be improved that much. The fact rust gave him a better map implementation out of the box is great, because it means he didn't need to be clever enough to figure those optimizations out himself. Its not an apples-to-apples comparison. But I don't think comparing the world's fastest C code to the world's fastest rust code is a good comparison either, since most programmers don't write code like that. Its usually incidental, low effort performance differences that make a programming language "fast" in the real world. Like a good btree implementation just shipping with the language. | ||
| ▲ | mandw 39 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | |
I did feel my post was a bit unneeded when I added my edit :) | ||
| ▲ | mjevans an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | |
What I think it illustrates more is how much classic languages could gain by having a serious overhaul of their standard library and maybe even a rebrand if that's the expected baseline of a conformant implementation. | ||