upvote
How close can pure functional programming get to C?

(rtfeldman.com)

Much of the difference in optimizability is that C/C++ allows you to do fairly extreme copy elision. This is important because memory bandwidth tends to be a major performance bottleneck.

C/C++ code can trivially reach into some remote bit of state and mutate it directly. The compiler rarely objects, no matter how ugly the access method or pattern. It is up to the programmer to make sure the invariants hold and the compiler can’t always see through it. These elided copies add up, though it usually has a maintainability and safety cost.

It is related to why functional languages tend to be mediocre for supercomputing in practice despite having nice properties for massive parallelism in theory.

reply
Clojure creator Rich Hickey describes traditional imperative programming as "PLace Oriented Programming (PLOP)" when talking about how Clojure's approach is better for certain kinds of problems.

I agree with his point, and Clojure is my favorite programming language, but the computer itself is place-oriented. It runs on reading from and writing to locations in memory, and extracting maximum efficiency from it requires direct control over that memory.

reply
That's a nice explanation, thanks.

Are there any common resources for this kind of access methods and patterns that specifically aim to bridge the soft-/hardware gap? The best one I can come up with is Performance Analysis and Tuning on Modern CPUs[0] by Denis Bakhvalov.

[0]: https://github.com/dendibakh/perf-book

reply
> lean-zip beats every single compression level miniz_oxide

Miniz_oxide is an intentionally simple implementation. It would be more fair to compare it to the newer zlib-rs[1], which even beats zlib-ng (fastest implementation in C)[2].

[1]: https://lib.rs/crates/zlib-rs

[2]: https://trifectatech.org/blog/zlib-rs-is-faster-than-c/

reply
Have you considered exposing these optimisations through a library so programmers can request optimisation passes and have the compiler check the preconditions?

Asking cuz I'm preparing an article on how fast JS can get and found the same thing, you can get in 10% of optimised C-code with basically any code if you torture V8 enough (excepting SIMD where there seems to be a bug in V8 where it doesn't optimise to SIMD even when beyond obvious). Figured out I could extract it in a lib and do it more streamlined but not sure how well manual transforms generalise.

Also, when working on the roc-deflate, did you find recurring transformations that could fit that model or were most improvements specific to compression?

reply
IIRC in weird corner cases, JS code can outperform wasm/C/C++ because JIT optimizes with escape analysis/inlining.

>where it doesn't optimise to SIMD even when beyond obvious What was that code?

reply
saying it "beats a crate that has been downloaded X times" is not saying anything other than that is popular. It'd be nice to see slightly more detail there.
reply
This is kind of hacker news post and comments I like; extreme languages on extreme performance with extreme features, not types being added to a language ten gizzilion times slower than a tortoise and the post making anti-type flat-earthers getting freaked out if they have to vaccinate next.
reply
This seems to raise the question: is libdeflate fast? My overall impression of libdeflate is that it produces a similar output size to zstd but takes 40 times longer to do it. I realize these are different algorithms of course, but they aren't that different, both being in the Huffman line of the LZ family. So why is libdeflate considered a performance benchmark?
reply
It’s probably just because a zstd implementation in Lean would be more difficult. The whole project depends on being able to have a correctness proof for the implementation, and implementing that for the DEFLATE algorithm is simpler.
reply
reply
The pure Lean implementation of zstd in that project is only decompression, not compression. It kind of proves my point.
reply
I'm very simple. I see Richard Feldman post. I like it. I'll leave it to the experts as to whether this is a case of opportunistic mutation.
reply
What are some well known programs made with Roc? And I'm curious about the difficulty level of its syntax
reply
There are no well known programs made with Roc. It's been usable for writing real software since July or so for those of us willing to deal with compiler crashes and regular syntax/feature changes. To my knowledge there are six people producing substantial amounts of software in Roc. I'm using it for a speech recognition/transcription app and the desktop environment and apps on my eink tablet, both on my own UI framework.
reply
Well, it has not even reached 0.1.0, so the language is still in early development phase. But it has interesting properties, so I would recommend experimenting with it.
reply
deleted
reply