News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on “Clean” Code, Horrible Performance. Parent comment

Re:“Clean” Code, Horrible Performance by duskwuff on Tuesday February 28, 2023 @04:23PM (#34975034)
> e.g. for video codecs not even C et al. cut it, you have to do assembly

This is largely inaccurate. Video encoders/decoders are typically written in C, with some use of compiler intrinsics or short inline assembly fragments for particularly "hot" functions.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:“Clean” Code, Horrible Performance by Cthulhu_ on Tuesday February 28, 2023 @04:36PM (#34975184)
Exactly, and they only decided to write those bits in assembly when they identified it as a hot code path AND the assembly outperformed any C code they could come up with.

The times that assembly outperforms a higher level language has reduced as well over time, with compiler and CPU improvements over time.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:“Clean” Code, Horrible Performance by kaba0 on Tuesday February 28, 2023 @04:54PM (#34975429)
Which is not in disagreement with my comment/take.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:“Clean” Code, Horrible Performance by kaba0 on Tuesday February 28, 2023 @04:33PM (#34975150)
I was talking about those hot functions only, not the rest of the program. But yeah a “sometimes” or a “may” would have helped in my original sentence.
[ Parent | on HN ]