Hacker News Reader

Comment by Annatar | Hacker News Reader

"And that's what we're talking about here, compilation speed, not computational equivalence."

I believe the original poster meant generated code when (s)he wrote about compiler performance; the compile time is rather irrelevant for something that gets done once; what's relevant is the speed of the generated code which then runs the next billion times (or more).

So let's get back to the performance of the code generated by the Rust compiler, shall we?

View on HN

If Rust didn't have good runtime performance, it wouldn't be worth looking at over SML, Ocaml, or Haskell.

> So let's get back to the performance of the code generated by the Rust compiler, shall we?

"Shall we" just stick our heads in the sand too? No, you don't fix problems by ignoring them or pretending they aren't a problem. Slow compilation speed is a problem if you care about developer productivity and quality of life.

Slow compilation speed is never a problem, I doubt anyone besides you cares about it. What is important is whether it generates fast code. Taking a long time to compile is fine if I get very fast code. I'm not going to be compiling code anywhere near as many times as I'm going to be running it.

You really think it's just me? Take care.

I do. Computers for most people are tools to perform final work faster, not a purpose unto itself which is all about programmer's convenience. A programmer's job is to be as uncomfortable and to suffer as much as possible so that the users could suffer as little as possible or not at all. This "developer convenience" attitude should be reproached or even financially penalized, so that such prima donnas finally come down to earth and start taking responsibility for their (shitty) software.

Compilers don't have to be slow to generate good code (at least not as slow as Rust). If you prefer them slow, you're just choosing to be ineffective like some idiotic martyr. Suffering for it's own sake is just stupid.

I don't care about that, could not care less: I just do make -j 96 and go do something else. The only thing that matters is very fast code. Back-end optimizers cost CPU cycles, there's no way around that. Expecting fast compilation times when iropt and lto have to do their thing is incredibly naive. How can anyone in this day and age be so naive?

That performance is mostly really good at the moment. There's some things to do, but we're already roughly at the same place C and C++ are.

...Which means you have lots of ground to cover before you reach parity with Fortran (phase 1), and then reach parity with CUDA Fortran (phase 2).

You're working from old information. Show me a benchmark where Fortran wins over C or C++ any more. Those days are gone. Here's my line in the sand:

    https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/faster/fortran.html

As for GPUs, no contest.

Benchmarks are meaningless. I know from experience at looking at the generated assembler code and intel Fortran's SIMD code that it's faster. Take a look at the generated code and then we can discuss it, but not before.

I'm not going to beat myself in C when I calculate a 100 million by 100 million matrix in Fortran. ifort will generate SIMD code with CPU autodetection and use machine code seqencing best for that processor, plus in Fortran a matrix is a normal variable type like any other. I'm not beating that with C (and I really know C).

And just so you know, my information isn't old, I come from supercomputing.

If you can contribute better Fortran programs for those Intel Fortran measurements, please do.

https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...

https://salsa.debian.org/benchmarksgame-team/benchmarksgame/...

And who will compensate me for my free time spent on that and at which rate per hour in USD?

Where and to whom do I send the bill?

If you don't wish to contribute better Fortran programs for those Intel Fortran measurements, then don't.

Where does it say that I don't wish to contribute? I asked about pay because my free time isn't worthless to me and I got back a tangential answer. "Hacker" "News" at its finest.

Seems like you wish to quarrel with someone about something.

If you wish to contribute then please follow the instructions; if you don't wish to contribute then have a nice day.

I note how you consistently avoid to discuss monetary compensation for investing my time into contributing. Yeah it pisses me off that you believe my free time is worthless and that you're just entitled to ask someone to donate their time without providing anything in return.

To know the price of everything but the value of nothing.

My free time is the most precious, most treasured, dearest thing I have ever had.

> Benchmarks are meaningless.

Random anecdotes are meaningless. I've looked at plenty of generated code, and I've written plenty of SIMD assembly too. If you can't measure it, you can't compare it or improve it. There's nothing to discuss.

So if you looked at it, where are the assembler listings to compare? Let me see, I want to see too!

If there is nothing to discuss and you plain refuse to do what I told you, why reply? Until you do exactly what I told you, there is nothing to see here. I have zero tolerance for people who won't listen. Move along, move along.

It's very weird you have the presentation of an impudent 20 year old but you share an irrational preference for Fortran, which is something I'm only used to seeing in people who are past their mid 50s.

"Move along"? You're very full of yourself, and I think that explains why you aren't as smart as you think you are.

What you are or aren't used to seeing is about relevant to me as the last year's snow. You're free to think whatever the hell you want, that being a basic human right. Move along now, nothing to see here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com