Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Slow in what sense? I mean, for almost all actual use cases, it seems to be quick enough when done right.


sort by: page size:

It might not be slow in general, but it's easy to write slow code in it.

Even the slow language features are fast enough for most use cases, though. I think the actual comparison here isn't between 'slow' and 'fast' but 'probably fast enough' and 'as fast as possible.'

How so? I never thought of it as slow.

Source: Was a Meta infra engineer until last month, working in CDN & LogDevice, among other teams.


There isn't much inherent in the language design which dictates it must be very slow, though. It's mostly a result of the canonical implementation.

"Seems fast enough to me," when something is clearly slow.

So instead we're just not going to optimize anything, and every tool just gets slower and slower and slower.


There's always going to be slow code. That's a fact of life. That's also part of the "not really good at anything" point I made about general purpose computing. You complain about waiting seconds or minutes like it's outrageous. Instead sit back and think about what that computer is actually doing. I do, and I marvel that it only takes seconds or minutes.

Right, that's my issue. People keep claiming something is slow, but when I ask for an actual example they almost never come up with one, so I can't profile and fix it... ;)

I'm finding it instantaneous here on a large dirty codebase. In what way is it slow for you?

It is slow, and I presume that’s because competent developers wrote it clean. It’s quite possible that it’s not clean either and was just written by developers incapable of performance or cleanliness. That possibility doesn’t detract from my argument - there’s no point in discussing performance or clean code with them if they’re incapable of either.

Not a downvoter, but something doesn't need to necessarily be a bottleneck to warrant speeding up. Put another way, why deliberately pick a slower method if a faster one exists?

Many applications these days suffer from "death by a thousand cuts" - there's no single thing which makes it slow, just lots and lots of slightly slow things piling on top of each other.


Slow is pretty relative. What’s your use case? Start up time is not as good as native, agreed. Arithmetic? Hotspot is pretty darn fast. Developer speed? A lot better than C/C++ at least.

In fairness, that is... if not quick, then not slow either in kernel development time:)

Yeah is too slow, but is not only that, is that it makes senses for it to exist years on user-land as a library (or multiple ones) before being implemented on any standard.

how slow is slow? Its one thing to be slow implementing a precise spec where the algorithms are sketched (ie problemeatic), its another thing (ie reasonable) to be slow cooking up a nicely designed tool with good / nontrivial algorithimics and interface

That slowness is tied to the GC, which you can swap in and out with others or turn off. I feel like this is a really undersold feature of the language.

No. What makes it "slow" is fundamentally that 1. Everything is bignum. 2. That any operation can be yielded.

It makes it really hard to optimise things that could be sped up by fusing operations.


I mean, some code is all slow paths ;)

Some people don't care that it's slow. Availability and uniformity is much more valuable for example in school environment, especially at one where they teach IT one hour per week and the teacher is not really a programmer themselves.

It might be slow, but it is deterministic which is more important in systems programs.
next

Legal | privacy