> On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 11:04:03 -0700
> Kent Borg wrote:
>
>> And...that was nicer to the cache, to the tune of being ~32% faster.
>
> I recognize that this is an aberration. That was the point, after all.
>
> Generally, though, I think my point about LLVM in general still stands.
> What makes Rust
On 8/7/24 11:58, Rich Pieri wrote:
What makes Rust interesting to me as an outside observer (I'm a
sysadmin, not a programmer) is that Rust performance is competitive
with C performance while producing much safer binaries.
I think the thing I like best about Rust, in the time I have programmed
> On 8/7/24 09:41, Kent Borg wrote:
>
> -kb, the Kent who is lazy and likes having fast data structures for
> free, even though he is sure Mark could implement a faster B-tree in C*.
I know you are saying this with some humor, however, it is circumstantial.
What happens when you have billions of
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 11:04:03 -0700
Kent Borg wrote:
> And...that was nicer to the cache, to the tune of being ~32% faster.
I recognize that this is an aberration. That was the point, after all.
Generally, though, I think my point about LLVM in general still stands.
What makes Rust interesting to
On 8/7/24 09:41, Kent Borg wrote:
Again, the posting says this requires further investigation with the
early guess that Rust is being nicer to the cache.
Turns out there was a followup post.
https://bcantrill.dtrace.org/2018/09/28/the-relative-performance-of-c-and-rust/
I think it is fair to
On 8/6/24 18:39, Rich Pieri wrote:
On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 16:31:29 -0700
Kent Borg wrote:
C/C++ compilers are more mature, so there are better optimizers for
C/C++ programmers. This is an advantage for C. Though, not always:
sometimes the machine code will simply be as fast as it possible, and
som
