upvote

points

by ACCount376 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby archargelod4 hours ago|
next
[-]
> For the rare exceptions, I make a C lib

The problem is that most people using Python don't have enough expertise in C to do the same.

It also kinda destroys the argument that Python is good if your solution for performance is to use a different language alongside it.

reply
upvoteby itishappy3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The argument is that the ergonomics of using Python are worth the squeeze of learning two languages. Are the ergonomics of using Zig really enough to justify replacing Python on the happy path, or would it end up replacing just C?
reply
upvoteby tasuki2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I find Python extremely unergonomical. Sure, it's nice to read (pseudocode, yay!) and sure, its library ecosystem is beyond amazing.

But... the LSPs I've tried (and I've tried a bunch!) are all atrocious: false positives and false negatives galore. Perhaps I'm spoiled by LSPs from languages with better type systems. Our code is strewn with (to me) mysterious comments such as `# NOQA 1234` which my colleague uses to make his Python tooling work with the codebase. I'm used to languages like Elm or Gleam in which a LSP error means there is an actual problem with your code, and a lack of a LSP error means the code will compile and run.

reply
upvoteby lenkite4 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Even if you are fine with Python's speed, its memory consumption DOES effect things and can be an extraordinary pain when you need to fit the result of your tinkering in any sort of constrained environment.
reply
upvoteby maccard3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
By the time I’m memory constrained even on my laptop the processing cost of whatever I’m doing has gone beyond shoving it in the first scripting language I can find. Every device I write code on has at least 16GB RAM - most of them are 64 or 128
reply
upvoteby p-e-w6 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Not to mention that where heavy computation is required, Python often has libraries that are much, much faster than anything you can quickly hack together in C or Zig.
reply
upvoteby maleldil5 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
As long as you can express everything you need on the library's terms. As soon as you write a Python loop, your performance plummets.
reply
upvoteby bluecalm4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Only if you doing something thousands of people has done before. Anything new, even very simple and you are on your own and Python is 100x slower than naive C implementation on many tasks.

Last little project I remember is writing a solver for a puzzle game my friend published. Python just doesn't work at all for such tasks.

I think you are wrong about speed of those libraries as well. In my experience naive code designed for a specific task beats highly sophisticated general code and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to get huge speed-ups over some well established fast library.

reply
upvoteby miki1232115 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
And if you really need more performance (or, more often, fast startup times), Go gives you 90% of the speed with 30% of the effort. Rust if you really want to squeeze everything that can possibly be squeezed of that CPU.
reply
upvoteby wmedrano2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Zig gives you more control than Rust, which should theoretically lead to a higher performance ceiling.

There's not much magic in Zig. Keep hitting goto-definition and you can eventually see the OS switch statements and syscalls.

reply
upvoteby pmarreck3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
that’s not what the benchmarks say about Go, and based on multiple reports, Rust does not scale well into large codebases, which eventually become brittle and very difficult to change

Zig is a return to “no magical effects,” except with reasonable safety

reply
upvoteby Philpax2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I would be very surprised to see a large Rust codebase being harder to maintain than a large Zig codebase. The former makes it much easier to maintain invariants at scale.
reply
upvoteby pron2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Neither has been battle-tested at the relevant scale.
reply
upvoteby Philpax2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
What kind of scale are you thinking of?
reply
upvoteby pron2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
By the time C++ and Java were as old as Rust is today there were thousands of programs that over 1MLOC that had been maintained for at least five years. Rust is a rather old language, yet I doubt there are even hundreds of Rust programs over 1MLOC.
reply
upvoteby Synthetic73463 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Link to said benchmarks?
reply
upvoteby kibwen3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> based on multiple reports

These reports are smoking crack. Rust scales gloriously well into large codebases, and it especially shines when it comes to making major refactorings. Please don't bother speaking about things that you don't understand.

reply
upvoteby 38362936482 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You are entirely right here, you're also incredibly rude. Please don't bother replying when the only thing you're actually doing is being condescending and spreading negativity
reply
upvoteby kibwen2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Rudeness is perfectly acceptable when it comes to preventing the spread of blithe and thoughtless disinformation. I have no obligation to be polite to people who speak authoritatively on topics they know nothing about. I recommend you spend less energy on trying to defend clueless people by policing the tone of the people educating them, unless you think that polite ignorance is more societally valuable than brusque truth.
reply
upvoteby macintux47 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

Rudeness may be acceptable elsewhere. Not here.

reply
upvoteby ACCount371 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
If I wanted to talk to a saccharine bootlicker who's agreeable but wrong, I'd go talk to an AI.
reply