When rust ≠ performance. a lesson in developer experience
1–10 of 25 posts
Re: When rust ≠ performance. a lesson in developer experience
#2> but because we have this data (file name, etc.) passed back and forth between different layers in the code. we were doing lots of .clone() and db.open() at different layers to fetch the same data. The interesting part for me was that, this change reduced our
Reduced your what? The article seems to be cut off.
Re: When rust ≠ performance. a lesson in developer experience
#3> but because we have this data (file name, etc.) passed back and forth between different layers in the code. we were doing lots of .clone() and db.open() at different layers to fetch the same data. The interesting part for me was that, this change reduced our Reduced your what? The article seems to be cut off.
I'm assuming it was going to say lines of code. It is highlighting that more was deleted than added.
Re: When rust ≠ performance. a lesson in developer experience
#4This is extremely sparse on details.
Re: When rust ≠ performance. a lesson in developer experience
#5This is extremely sparse on details.
It feels like a rage bait. It's clearly their own fault and has nothing to do with Rust.
Re: When rust ≠ performance. a lesson in developer experience
#6algorithm design and managing memory is something you have to think about regardless of what language you use, that should be obvious. Using rust doesn't guarantee correctness or performance, that should also be obvious.
Rust has features that make it easier to make correct and performant software, I think most programmers would agree?
Please stop this rust clickbait nonsense.
Re: When rust ≠ performance. a lesson in developer experience
#7I wonder to what extent the complexity of the rust language hurts performance. We all only have so much mental capacity, if much of it is spent on the various different intersections of rust's features, that reduces how much we can spend on making things fast.
(I like Rust btw)
Re: When rust ≠ performance. a lesson in developer experience
#8Re: When rust ≠ performance. a lesson in developer experience
#9> but because we have this data (file name, etc.) passed back and forth between different layers in the code. we were doing lots of .clone() and db.open() at different layers to fetch the same data. The interesting part for me was that, this change reduced our Reduced your what? The article seems to be cut off.
I'm assuming it was going to say lines of code. It is highlighting that more was deleted than added.
I agree. Though the line count is meaningless as the vibe coded diff has pointless formatting and whitespace changes.
Re: When rust ≠ performance. a lesson in developer experience
#10> but because we have this data (file name, etc.) passed back and forth between different layers in the code. we were doing lots of .clone() and db.open() at different layers to fetch the same data. The interesting part for me was that, this change reduced our Reduced your what? The article seems to be cut off.
ah! sorry. I meant to say, "the interesting part for me was that we removed code to improve performance."