Originally posted by treba
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
A Quick Look At The Firefox 66.0 vs. Chrome 73.0 Performance Benchmarks
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by starshipeleven View PostReally, the main reason he does not want C++ in the kernel right now is that he does not see benefit in using most C++ features at all (which is 100% understandable as they were made for userspace application development, aka to abstract complexity so that the developer can deal with it faster)
Comment
-
Originally posted by kyrios View PostIn real world situations in which specific cases is there a noticeable performances difference?
The web in general is going in the direction of more and more JS and more advanced "web applications" so Firefox is basically out of the game unless it by a miracle manages to become a whole lot faster. I would ideally like to be able to use Firefox for everything, I liked how it used to respect my privacy and used to be highly configurable with plugins. It's sad that for an increasing number of sites it's just not a choice. In some specific cases using Firefox on my Ryzen 1600X desktop with a RX570 GPU feels worse and slower than Chromium on my Penium N4200 laptop with a iGPU.
Comment
-
Originally posted by starshipeleven View PostI was referring specifically to that quote already, and since I'm not a little shit like you I'm not going to post only a snippet of it.
I know it hurts but it's just facts bud.
Originally posted by starshipeleven View PostAs you can clearly see above, more than 70% of the actual message is spent whining about C++ features or libraries. I'm personally in agreement about his "object model is crap" general theme.
Of course he is also calling idiots all the people that think the features he hates are good, but that's just a logical consequence of hating C++ language features.
Furthermore most of his whining is not about the language itself but what it "leads to", aka the people using it and the community. It's not the fault of the language because it doesn't force you to use them. It's the community, again, the trash programmers. And same with Rust.
Sure you can code with unsafe blocks everywhere in Rust, but the language was not designed for that (unlike C++ which works ok as a C replacement with the same features!) and is ugly as hell to do it. Therefore Rust (the language) creates an even shittier community which attracts even more idiots.Last edited by Weasel; 25 March 2019, 12:40 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by hreindl View Postamazing how you prove your stupidity whenever there is a opportunity to do so
first there is a difference between a kernel and userland, second I have other than you no problem with any programming language no matter if I use it personally or not
finally given the age of rust the chances are good that Linux if it would start from scratch now would use it
your head is so full of shit that you don't see why a still compiled language with more security against programming errors is
a way better decision than pure c/c++ which was chosen for many projects because at that time where nothing better available
Comment
-
Originally posted by hreindl View Postsays the number one idiot of phoronix - why do you fucker use C/C++ at all instead ASM? :-)
tl;dr: There's no "-mtune=bla" in asm to tune the same code for two different uarch.
Comment
-
Originally posted by hreindl View Posthandcraft - idiot
And I don't know what "handcraft" is supposed to mean. If you mean writing it instruction by instruction, sure, but as I've already said the benefit/efficiency varies with each uarch. Sometimes do "handcraft" though, whether by inline asm or just straight up asm functions.
But stuff like organizing your data structures or code flow to be more efficient is a design decision (especially when vectorized), doesn't matter the language. Thing is, only C (and C-like C++, aka proper C++) and asm programmers tend to think that way. Others think about "mah beautiful codez omg" and other abstract subjective emotional hysteria. Rust fits there.
Comment
-
Originally posted by hreindl View Posteither you are capable to do it without any "but" or shut up!
I'm not saying writing in assembler once is "harder" (it is just a bit, but not significant). I'm saying having to tune it to another uarch is too much waste of time if you want to write the entire code that way.
Comment
-
Originally posted by hreindl View Postwhat you little idiot refuse to realize is that there is little no no performance win C++ versus Rust and the same time you even admit "applicable only to some hot functions in general" what let you look like a moron, but well, you where also the shithead shouting against compiler hardening flags because of your holy perormance while you as always never provided any numbers backing your bullshit
I also don't give a shit about your numbers, if we are to go by "applicable" performance. For example, something that takes 2 clock cycles versus 1 is twice as fast, a 100% performance boost, but obviously you wouldn't care about it unless it was in a tight loop. That doesn't mean the optimization doesn't apply, because it does, you just don't give a shit about it. And I don't care about your opinion so...
Comment
Comment