• snaggen@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      But isn’t it kind of obvious that if you are able to do 180k times improvement, then the baseline is probably not very impressive to begin with. Still, that doesn’t take away that the optimizations were impressive, and that it was interesting to read about it.

      • Turun@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        I think your last sentence has one negation too much.

        If it was interesting to read about it, then the criticism did not take away that the optimizations were impressive.

        • snaggen@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Fixed it… I come from a language culture were we like our negations :) Also, not native english speaker, so combine the two and you are in for a ride!

    • bluGill@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      With rust is the joke as if you couldn’t do it otherwise. Maybe c would be only 179,999x faster, or FORTRAN 180,001x, (numbers made up). Python could probably be made 60,000x faster as well.

    • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yet it’s a fine baseline. The actual speedup for switching to rust was 8x, the rest was all about changing data structures, using SIMD, parallelism and batching.

  • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Their actual speedup for switching languages was 8x. The rest was all about using better data structures and parallelism.