←back to thread

Zlib-rs is faster than C

(trifectatech.org)
341 points dochtman | 4 comments | 16 Mar 25 19:35 UTC | HN request time: 0.439s | source
Show context
johnisgood ◴[16 Mar 25 20:00 UTC] No.43381735[source]▶
"faster than C" almost always boils down to different designs, implementations, algorithms, etc.

Perhaps it is faster than already-existing implementations, sure, but not "faster than C", and it is odd to make such claims.

replies(10): >>43381810 #>>43381813 #>>43381820 #>>43381959 #>>43382108 #>>43382124 #>>43382267 #>>43385171 #>>43386202 #>>43392542 #
qweqwe14 ◴[16 Mar 25 20:07 UTC] No.43381813[source]▶
The fact that it's faster than the C implementation that surely had more time and effort put into it doesn't look good for C here.
replies(3): >>43381819 #>>43382282 #>>43385271 #
1. johnisgood ◴[16 Mar 25 20:08 UTC] No.43381819[source]▶
It says absolutely nothing about the programming language though.
replies(2): >>43382007 #>>43392496 #
2. acdha ◴[16 Mar 25 20:30 UTC] No.43382007[source]▶
Doesn’t it say something if Rust programmers routinely feel more comfortable making aggressive optimizations and have more time to do so? We maintain code for longer than the time taken to write the first version and not having to pay as much ongoing overhead cost is worth something.
3. jason-johnson ◴[17 Mar 25 20:37 UTC] No.43392496[source]▶
How can it not? Experts in C taking longer to make a slower and less safe implementation than experts in Rust? It's not conclusive but it most certainly says something about the language.
replies(1): >>43402334 #
4. johnisgood ◴[18 Mar 25 17:43 UTC] No.43402334[source]▶
> Experts in C taking longer to make a slower and less safe implementation than experts in Rust?

How do you know this exactly?