191–200 of 269 posts
I just wanted to comment on how good the homepage is - it's immediately clear what you do. Most people working with "combinators" would feel a need to use lots of scary lingo, but OP actually shows the simple idea behind the tool (this is the opposite take of most academics, who instead show every last detail and never tell you what's going on). I really appreciate it - we need more of this.
For what it's worth, I ported the sum example to pure python. def sum(depth, x): if depth == 0: return x else: fst = sum(depth-1, x*2+0) # adds the fst half snd = sum(depth-1, x*2+1) # adds the snd half return fst + snd print(sum(30, 0)) under pypy3 it executes in 0m4.478s, single threaded. Under python 3.12, it executed in 1m42.148s, again single threaded. I mention that because you include benchmark information: CP…
For what it's worth, I ported the sum example to pure python. def sum(depth, x): if depth == 0: return x else: fst = sum(depth-1, x*2+0) # adds the fst half snd = sum(depth-1, x*2+1) # adds the snd half return fst + snd print(sum(30, 0)) under pypy3 it executes in 0m4.478s, single threaded. Under python 3.12, it executed in 1m42.148s, again single threaded. I mention that because you include benchmark information: CP…
OP comes around with some of the coolest things posted in HN recently, and all he gets is extensive criticism, when it is clear that this is an early version :/
P.s. it seems rather likely the op is Victor Taelin, they mostly submit his tweets and gists.
Who are you rooting for, exactly, newcomer?
P.p.s. Victor Taelin just happens to be the most recent committer on this submission, imagine that.
OP comes around with some of the coolest things posted in HN recently, and all he gets is extensive criticism, when it is clear that this is an early version :/
Correction for you - This is patently false, OP has had three hits -- this one, and two one hundred pointers out of 100-200 submissions. P.s. it seems rather likely the op is Victor Taelin, they mostly submit his tweets and gists. Who are you rooting for, exactly, newcomer? P.p.s. Victor Taelin just happens to be the most recent committer on this submission, imagine that. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35363400
Very cool idea - but unless I'm missing something, this seems very slow. I just wrote a simple loop in C++ to sum up 0 to 2^30. With a single thread without any optimizations it runs in 1.7s on my laptop -- matching Bend's performance on an RTX 4090! With -O3 it vectorizes the loop to run in less than 80ms. #include int main() { int sum = 0; for (int i = 0; i
Bend has no tail-call optimization yet. It is allocating a 1-billion long stack, while C is just looping. If you compare against a C program that does actual allocations, Bend will most likely be faster with a few threads. Bend's codegen is still abysmal, but these are all low-hanging fruits. Most of the work went into making the parallel evaluator correct (which is extremely hard!). I know that sounds "trust me", bu…
I've never understood the fascination with tail calls and recursion among computer science folks. Just write a loop, it's what it optimises to anyway.
OP comes around with some of the coolest things posted in HN recently, and all he gets is extensive criticism, when it is clear that this is an early version :/
Correction for you - This is patently false, OP has had three hits -- this one, and two one hundred pointers out of 100-200 submissions. P.s. it seems rather likely the op is Victor Taelin, they mostly submit his tweets and gists. Who are you rooting for, exactly, newcomer? P.p.s. Victor Taelin just happens to be the most recent committer on this submission, imagine that. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35363400
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Right below install instructions Yeah exactly. I read most of the readme and watched the demo, but I'm not interested in installing it so I missed this. I would recommend moving this to the first section in its own paragraph. I understand you might not want to focus on this but it's important information and not a bad thing at all.
That's a great feedback actually, thank you. We'll add the disclaimer before the install instructions instead!
I think you can avoid this kind of criticism by setting expectations better - just plastering a banner at the top saying that it’s in early stage development and not optimized, but that the future is bright, for example. The current headline saying it’s the “parallel future of computation” isn’t really enough to make people understand that the future isn’t here yet.
Same goes for the README, the fact that it’s not production ready per-se really ought to be at the top to set people’s expectations properly IMO, since a lot of people will not read the whole wall of text and just jump straight into trying it out once they’re on your GitHub page.
They’re critical since they are led to have much higher expectations than what actually exists today.
That said, this is a cool project and wish you the best in making it really good!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Future" has some mild speed implications but it sounds like you're doing reasonably there, bug nonwithstanding.
But it literally says we believe it is the future of parallel computing! If it was faster than GCC today, we would've written present :')