News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The relative performance of C and Rust. Parent comment

Re:The relative performance of C and Rust by marcosdumay on Saturday September 29, 2018 @10:25AM (#18100513)
Rust encourages the creation of more generic code, that makes switching into non-DIY more complex data structures easier. The difference is even larger after the code is written and you are able to profile it.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The relative performance of C and Rust by stochastic_monk on Saturday September 29, 2018 @10:36AM (#18100572)
Then Heng Li’s kbtree.h from klib is your generic, fast implementation. I’d love to see this repeated using it for a fair comparison.

For example, the benchmark shootout recommends his khash for a hash table.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The relative performance of C and Rust by marcosdumay on Saturday September 29, 2018 @01:08PM (#18101479)
The point is entirely that it is harder to take a typical C code and change it to use something like this than it is to do the same in Rust. Much harder.

I don't think anybody will find any consistent performance enhancement in Rust that can not be replicated in C. The problem is how to run it out on real code.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The relative performance of C and Rust by stochastic_monk on Saturday September 29, 2018 @01:47PM (#18101711)
That’s fair. klib (I assume) was not easy to develop, but it easy to use.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The relative performance of C and Rust by marcosdumay on Saturday September 29, 2018 @10:59PM (#18104221)
It's easy to use. What is not easy is to take a large code-base that doesn't use it and change it so it now uses.
[ Parent | on HN ]