←back to thread

Zlib-rs is faster than C

(trifectatech.org)
341 points dochtman | 8 comments | 16 Mar 25 19:35 UTC | HN request time: 1.085s | source | bottom
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 #
layer8 ◴[16 Mar 25 21:00 UTC] No.43382267[source]▶
If anything, this should be “zlib-rs is faster than zlib-ng”, but not “$library is faster than $programming_language”.
replies(1): >>43382768 #
chjj[dead post] ◴[16 Mar 25 21:50 UTC] No.43382768[source]▶
[flagged]
pdimitar ◴[17 Mar 25 00:29 UTC] No.43383969[source]▶
I am hopping on Rust threads on HN very regularly and I have to tell you my anecdotal experience.

Which is: people complaining about Rust zealots are much more than actual Rust zealots. Thinking of it, I haven't seen a proper Rust zealot on HN for at least a year at this point.

So I don't know, maybe do less cheap digs. Tearing down straw men is pretty boring to watch.

replies(3): >>43385343 #>>43385702 #>>43388717 #
1. wolvesechoes ◴[17 Mar 25 14:02 UTC] No.43388717[source]▶
Funny, because I could swear that for every comment that rises some criticism against Rust design/implementation/ergonomics/whatever, I find a dozen that "respectfully disagree", i.e. try very hard to deny validity of original claims.

It is somewhat similar, actually, when someone states a negative opinion on Rust community and marketing around it. It is usually followed by those that say "you met wrong people".

Of course, you won't find any examples in this thread xd.

replies(2): >>43388770 #>>43390316 #
2. pdimitar ◴[17 Mar 25 14:07 UTC] No.43388770[source]▶
You can swear on anything, does not make it any more true. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

All you do is defend very anecdotal evidence. Surely you can see this is not logically compelling.

replies(2): >>43390490 #>>43390494 #
3. sophacles ◴[17 Mar 25 16:37 UTC] No.43390316[source]▶
Wait... zealotry is not "someone having a different opinion".

Literally that's what you're saying: they have a different opinion therefore they're zealots!

Unless people posting an opinion is itself zealotry... but in that case why are you complaining about the replies and not the comments they reply to?

replies(1): >>43391707 #
4. johnisgood ◴[17 Mar 25 16:58 UTC] No.43390490[source]▶
He is replying to YOUR anecdotal experience though.
replies(1): >>43394307 #
5. finnthehuman ◴[17 Mar 25 16:59 UTC] No.43390494[source]▶
In case you're ESL, you're downvoted because in this context "I swear" means "here comes some anecdotal evidence" and not "I promise this is true."
replies(1): >>43394295 #
6. wolvesechoes ◴[17 Mar 25 19:00 UTC] No.43391707[source]▶
It is hard to call it "literal" interpretation of my words when they do not contain any occurrence of the word "zealots".

I think exegesis is a skill you need to hone further.

7. pdimitar ◴[18 Mar 25 00:16 UTC] No.43394295{3}[source]▶
English is not my mother tongue and while I speak and write it quite well, such nuances escape me.

Thanks for the clarification. Appreciate it. <3

8. pdimitar ◴[18 Mar 25 00:16 UTC] No.43394307{3}[source]▶
Well, I don't generalize it and claim it as a truth. That's why I had a heated exchange here.

Appreciate the perspective however. It's helpful.