←back to thread

Zlib-rs is faster than C

(trifectatech.org)
341 points dochtman | 1 comments | 16 Mar 25 19:35 UTC | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
tdiff ◴[16 Mar 25 20:23 UTC] No.43381959[source]▶
Nevertheless Russinovich actually says something in the lines of "simple rewriting in rust made some our code 5-15% faster (without deliberate optimizations)": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VgptLwP588&t=351s
replies(2): >>43382117 #>>43386236 #
pinkmuffinere ◴[16 Mar 25 20:43 UTC] No.43382117[source]▶
I’m sure I’m missing context, and presumably there are other benefits, but 5-15% improvement is such a small step to justify rewriting codebases.

I also wonder how much of an improvement you’d get by just asking for a “simple rewrite” in the existing language. I suspect there are often performance improvements to be had with simple changes in the existing language

replies(5): >>43382207 #>>43382269 #>>43382320 #>>43383954 #>>43385793 #
1. tdiff ◴[16 Mar 25 20:53 UTC] No.43382207[source]▶
I agree that simple rewriting could have given some if not all perf benefits, but can it be the case that rust forces us to structure code in a way that is for some reason more performant in some cases?

5-15% is a big deal for a low-level foundational code, especially if you get it along with some other guarantees, which may be of greater importance.