Timeline for Why do we have to trade abstraction for speed?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 20, 2023 at 22:25 | comment | added | Jody Bruchon | Somewhat recently there was a "fastest language" "competition" by Dave's Garage on YouTube. The conclusions were not useful because they crowdsourced the code and every language had a different developer and sometimes a completely different problem approach. At best it wad a comparison of how well the coders knew both their language of choice and how good the approach they chose to code was at solving the problem. The difference wasn't the languages; some of the slower languages did very well and somehow Zig "beat" C despite being so new. | |
| Jun 1, 2016 at 13:50 | comment | added | Kaveh | Haskell is really an exception that proves the rule. ;) I think C++ has found a rather reasonable middle ground about GC by its smart pointers as long as you don't nest shared pointers and will be as fast as C. | |
| May 28, 2016 at 9:22 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| May 26, 2016 at 23:09 | comment | added | Raphael | "C code tends to be faster because people who need every inch of performance use C" -- exactly. I want to see benchmarks of the form "average running time of code written by X-year students/professionals with Y years of experience in Z". I expect that the answer for C is usually "code not correct" for small X and Y. It'd be really interesting to see how much more experience/expertise you need to leverage the potential for performance C promises. | |
| May 26, 2016 at 22:03 | history | answered | Joey Eremondi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |