• ramble81@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        My thoughts on software in general over the past 20 years. So many programs inefficiently written and in 4th level languages just eats up any CPU/memory gain. (Less soap box and more of a curious what if to how fast things would be if we still wrote highly optimized programs)

        • masterspace@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Answer: there’d be far less software in the world, it would all be more archaic and less useful, and our phones and laptops would just sit at 2% utilization most of the time.

          There’s an opportunity cost to everything, including fussing over whether that value can be stored as an int instead of a double to save 8 bits of space. High level languages let developers express their feature and business logic faster, with fewer bugs, and much lower ongoing maintenance costs.

        • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          I fully concur. There’s tons of really inefficient software out there that wastes resources just because for a long time, available resources grew fast enough to just keep using more of them without the net speed of an application slowing down. If we didn’t have so many lazy SW devs, I suspect the reduction in needed CPU cycles would have a measurable positive effect on climate change.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Nope it’s still a register-register op, that’s very much load-store architecture.

          It’s reduced, not minimalist, otherwise every RISC CPU out there would only have one instruction like decrement and branch if nonzero. RISC-V would not have an extension mechanism. The instruction exists because it makes things faster because you don’t have to do manual bit-fiddling over 10 instructions to achieve a thing already-existing ALU logic can do in a single cycle. A thing that isn’t even javascript-specific (or terribly relevant to json), it’s a specific float to int cast with specific rounding and overflow mode. Would it more palatable to your tastes if the CPU were to do macro-op fusion on 10(!) instructions to get the same result?

        • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          The website title says “Arm Developer”, not “ARM Developer”, in a clearly non-acronym way so it’s a guide for making prosthetic hardware. Of course you want a cyborg arm to parse JS natively, why else even get one?

      • vvvvv@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        106 Gbps

        They get to this result on 0.6 MB of data (paper, page 5)

        They even say:

        Moreover, there is no need to evaluate our design with datasets larger than the ones we have used; we achieve steady state performance with our datasets

        This requires an explanation. I do see the need - if you promise 100Gbps you need to process at least a few Tbs.

        • neatchee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Imagine you have a car powered by a nuclear reactor with enough fuel to last 100 years and a stable output of energy. Then you put it on a 5 mile road that is comprised of the same 250 small segments in various configurations, but you know for a fact that starts and ends at the same elevation. You also know that this car gains exactly as much performance going downhill as it loses going uphill.

          You set the car driving and determine that, it takes 15 minutes to travel 5 miles. You reconfigure the road, same rules, and do it again. Same result, 15 minutes. You do this again and again and again and always get 15 minutes.

          Do you need to test the car on a 20 mile road of the same configuration to know that it goes 20mph?

          JSON is a text-based, uncompressed format. It has very strict rules and a limited number of data types and structures. Further, it cannot contain computational logic on it’s own. The contents can interpreted after being read to extract logic, but the JSON itself cannot change it’s own computational complexity. As such, it’s simple to express every possible form and complexity a JSON object can take within just 0.6 MB of data. And once they know they can process that file in however-the-fuck-many microseconds, they can extrapolate to Gbps from there

  • Ironfacebuster@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Rockstar making GTA online be like: “Computer, here is a 512mb json file please download it from the server and then do nothing with it”

  • AusatKeyboardPremi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Given it is a CPU is limiting the parsing of the file, I wonder how a GPU-based editor like Zed would handle it.

    Been wanting to test out the editor ever since it was partially open sourced but I am too lazy to get around doing it

    • agelord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      As far as my understanding goes, Zed uses the GPU only for rendering things on screen. And from what I’ve heard, most editors do that. I don’t understand why Zed uses that as a key marketing point