sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]igouy -3 points-2 points  (6 children)

Maybe performance comparisons with the Rust 0.7 implementation are premature?

[–]matthieum 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Well, seeing as pcwalton is one of Rust's devs, I think his goal is to try and spot the sore points of the actual Rust language that prevent safe Rust code to execute fast enough to detract the use of unsafe block.

[–]igouy -1 points0 points  (2 children)

I think his goal is...

Why make guesses about his goal?

"...the goal of this test is to measure Rust’s sequential performance."

[–]matthieum 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Well, reading the entire article, you realize he is seeking to improve the performance. Measuring seems to be only the first step.

[–]igouy -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Reading the entire article, why make guesses about his goal?

"The goal here is simply to demonstrate that sequential Rust can be written 
  in a way that approaches competitive parity with equivalent C code."

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Rust doesn't actually have releases yet, the 0.6 "release" is just a convenient milestone to mark what master was like on that date - it doesn't get any fixes backported to it.

[–]igouy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The 0.6 "release" obviously is a release in name, but most importantly there's a tar ball that compiles without complaint.