←back to thread

597 points pizlonator | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
crawshaw ◴[] No.45134578[source]
It is great that Fil-C exists. This is the sort of technique that is very effective for real programs, but that developers are convinced does not work. Existence proofs cut through long circular arguments.
replies(2): >>45134840 #>>45135366 #
johncolanduoni ◴[] No.45134840[source]
What do the benchmarks look like? My main concern with this approach would be that the performance envelope would eliminate it for the use-cases where C/C++ are still popular. If throughput/latency/footprint are too similar to using Go or what have you, there end up being far fewer situations in which you would reach for it.
replies(1): >>45134852 #
pizlonator ◴[] No.45134852[source]
Some programs run as fast as normally. That's admittedly not super common, but it happens.

Some programs have a ~4x slowdown. That's also not super common, but it happens.

Most programs are somewhere in the middle.

> for the use-cases where C/C++ are still popular

This is a myth. 99% of the C/C++ code you are using right now is not perf sensitive. It's written in C or C++ because:

- That's what it was originally written in and nobody bothered to write a better version in any other language.

- The code depends on a C/C++ library and there doesn't exist a high quality binding for that library in any other language, which forces the dev to write code in C/C++.

- C/C++ provides the best level of abstraction (memory and syscalls) for the use case.

Great examples are things like shells and text editors, where the syscalls you want to use are exposed at the highest level of fidelity in libc and if you wrote your code in any other language you'd be constrained by that language's library's limited (and perpetually outdated) view of those syscalls.

replies(8): >>45134950 #>>45135063 #>>45135080 #>>45135102 #>>45135517 #>>45136755 #>>45137524 #>>45143638 #
johncolanduoni ◴[] No.45135102[source]
While there are certainly other reasons C/C++ get used in new projects, I think 99% not being performance or footprint sensitive is way overstating it. There's tons of embedded use cases where a GC is not going to fly just from a code size perspective, let alone latency. That's mostly where I've often seen C (not C++) for new programs. Also, if Chrome gets 2x slower I'll finally switch back to Firefox. That's tens of millions of lines of performance-sensitive C++ right there.

That actually brings up another question: how would trying to run a JIT like V8 inside Fil-C go? I assume there would have to be some bypass/exit before jumping to generated code - would there need to be other adjustments?

replies(7): >>45135144 #>>45135158 #>>45135395 #>>45135400 #>>45135515 #>>45136267 #>>45138618 #
pjmlp ◴[] No.45135400[source]
Books like Zen of Assembly Programming exist, exactly because once upon a time, performance sensitive and C or C++ on the same sentence did not made any sense.

It is decades of backed optimisation work, some of which exploring UB based optimizations, that has made that urban myth possible.

As the .NET team discovered, and points out on each release since .NET 5 on lengthy blog posts able to kill most browsers buffers, if the team puts down as much work on the JIT and AOT compilers as the Visual C++ team, then performance looks quite different than what everyone else expects it naturally to be like.

replies(2): >>45135511 #>>45142482 #
1. ngrilly ◴[] No.45135511[source]
You got me curious and I visited one of these .NET performance posts and indeed, it crashed my browser tab!