Comment by kibwen | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kibwen | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I like to say that there are two primary factors when we talk about how "fast" a language is:

1. What costs does the language actively inject into a program?

2. What optimizations does the language facilitate?

Most of the time, it's sufficient to just think about the first point. C and Rust are faster than Python and Javascript because the dynamic nature of the latter two requires implementations to inject runtime checks all over the place to enable that dynamism. Rust and C simply inject essentially zero active runtime checks, so membership in this club is easy to verify.

The second one is where we get bogged down, because drawing clean conclusions is complicated by the (possibly theoretical) existence of optimizing compilers that can leverage the optimizability inherent to the language, as well as the inherent fragility of such optimizations in practice. This is where we find ourselves saying things like "well Rust could have an advantage over C, since it frequently has more precise and comprehensive aliasing information to pass to the optimizer", though measuring this benefit is nontrivial and it's unclear how well LLVM is thoroughly utilizing this information at present. At the same time, the enormous observed gulf between Rust in release mode (where it's as fast as C) and Rust in debug mode (when it's as slow as Ruby) shows how important this consideration is; Rust would not have achieved C speeds if it did not carefully pick abstractions that were amenable to optimization.

I like this framing a lot.

It's also interesting to think about this in terms of the "zero cost abstractions"/"zero overhead abstractions" idea, which Stroustrup wrote as "What you don't use, you don't pay for. What you do use, you couldn't hand code any better". The first sentence is about 1, and the second one is about what you're able to do with 2.

I think there's a third question, but I don't know quite how to phrase it. Maybe "how real-world fast is the language?" or "how fast is the language in the hands of someone who isn't obsessively thinking about speed?"

That is, most of the time, most of the users aren't thinking about how to squeeze the last tenth of a percent of speed out of it. They aren't thinking about speed at all. They're thinking about writing code that works at all, and that hopefully doesn't crash too often. How fast is the language for them? Does it nudge them toward faster code, or slower? Are the default, idiomatic ways of writing things the fast way, or the slow way?

A lot of people think of static types as a safety feature, but the origin is performance. The assembly needs to know struct sizes ahead of time.

Is Javascript significantly slower? It is extremely common in the real world and so a lot of effort has gone into optimizing it - v8 is very good. Yes C and Rust enable more optimizations: they will be slightly faster, but javascript has had a lot of effort put into making it run fast.

Yes. V8 (and other Javascript JIT engines) are very good, with a lot of effort put into them by talented engineers. But there's a floor on performance imposed by the language's own semantics. Of course, if your program is I/O bound rather than CPU bound (especially at network-scale latencies), this may never be noticeable. But a Javascript program will use significantly more CPU, significantly more memory, and both CPU and memory usage will be significantly more variable and less predictable than a program written in C or Rust.

It's complicated, though mostly that complication doesn't change the overall conclusion.

Much of the language's semantics can be boiled away before JIT compilation, because that flexibility isn't in use at that time, which can be proven by a quick check before entering the hot code. (Or in the extreme, the JIT code doesn't check it at all, and the runtime invalidates that code lazily when an operation is performed that violates those preconditions.) Which thwarts people who do simple-minded comparisons of "what language is fastest at `for (i = 0; i < 10000000; i++) x += 7`?", because the runtime is entirely dominated by the hot loop, and the machine code for the hot loop is identical across all languages tested.

Still: you have to spend time JIT compiling. You have to do some dynamic checks in all but the innermost hot code. You have to materialize data in memory, even if just as a fallback, and you have to garbage collect periodically.

So I agree with your conclusion, except for perhaps un-nuanced use of the term "performance floor" -- there's really no elevated JS floor, at least not a global one; simple JS can generate the same or nearly the same machine code as equivalent C/C++/Rust, will use no more memory, and will never GC. But that floor only applies to a small subset of code (which can be the bulk of the runtime!), and the higher floor does kick in for everything else. So generally speaking, JS can only "be as fast" as non-managed languages for simple programs.

(I'll ignore the situations where the JIT can depend on stricter constraints at runtime than AOT-compiled languages, because I've never seen a real-world situation where it helps enough to counterbalance everything else.)

Yes, for most real-world examples JavaScript is significantly slower; JIT isn’t free and can be very sensitive to small code changes, you also have to consider the garbage collector.

Speed is also not the only metric, Rust and C enable much better control over memory usage. In general, it is easier to write a memory-efficient program in Rust or C than it is in JS.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com