this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
11 points (100.0% liked)

Rust

6005 readers
6 users here now

Welcome to the Rust community! This is a place to discuss about the Rust programming language.

Wormhole

!performance@programming.dev

Credits

  • The icon is a modified version of the official rust logo (changing the colors to a gradient and black background)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] allan@lemmyrs.org 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The link to the original post had the original code referenced, it seems, and extremely misleading is a bit strong to me..

I'm still boggled by just using idiomatic rust iterators giving multiple times performance. Then it quickly gets too golfy for real life, imo

[–] wim@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The original post made a valid point. This one makes a point as well, but representing it as "128x faster than C" is plain clickbait.

It's not comparing the same type of program. If it used intrinsics in C (they exist, it's where most other languages leverage their intrinsic support from), or even turned on GCC or LLVM auto vectorization to compare performance, I'd be willing to let it go, but right now it's just misrepresenting reality in that title.

We don't need this kind of hyperbole or clickbait. We're better than that as a community. I don't mean this as "article bad! author bad!", this article is useful, but it would be much better of titled something like "Speeding up string search 128x by using SIMD intrinsics in Rust", which gets the point across and the 128x number would still attract enough attention, but for the right reasons.

[–] snaggen@programming.dev 4 points 1 year ago

I updated the title of this post, as per your suggestion

[–] snaggen@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago

This post seems to have taken the title from a previous post that this is built upon. So that is probably why the title gets a bit confusing when viewed standalone.