The tricky part is really point 2 there, that can be harder than it looks (e.g. even simple file I/O can be network drives). Async IO can really shine here, though it’s not exactly trivial designing async cancelletion either.
The while loop surrounds the whole thread, which does multiple tasks. The conditional is there to surround some work completing in a reasonable time. That's how I understood, at least.
No, but if you phrase it like "there are multiple correct answers to the question 'I have a list of integers, write me a computer program that sorts it'", that is obviously true. There's an enormous variety of different computer programs that you can write that sorts a list.
Is the protocol inherently inferior in situations like that, or is this because we've spent decades optimizing for TCP and building into kernels and hardware? If we imagine a future where QUIC gets that kind of support, will it still be a downgrade?
There is no performance disadvantage at the normal speed of most implementations. With a good QUIC implementation and a good network stack you can drive ~100 Gb/s per core on a regular processor from userspace with 1500-byte MTU with no segmentation offload if you use a unencrypted QUIC configuration. If you use encryption, then you will bottleneck on the encryption/decryption bandwidth of ~20-50 Gb/s depending on your processor.
On the Linux kernel [1], for some benchmark they average ~24 Gb/s for unencrypted TCP from kernel space with 1500-byte MTU using segmentation offload. For encrypted transport, they average ~11 Gb/s. Even using 9000-byte MTU for unencrypted TCP they only average ~39 Gb/s. So there is no inherent disadvantage when considering implementations of this performance level.
And yes, that is a link to a Linux kernel QUIC vs Linux kernel TCP comparison. And yes, the Linux kernel QUIC implementation is only driving ~5 Gb/s which is 20x slower than what I stated is possible for a QUIC implementation above. Every QUIC implementation in the wild is dreadfully slow compared to what you could actually achieve with a proper implementation.
Theoretically, there is a small fundamental advantage to TCP due to not having multiple streams which could allow it maybe a ~2x performance advantage when comparing perfectly optimal implementations. But, you are comparing a per-core control plane throughput using 1500-byte MTU of, by my estimation, ~300 Gb/s on QUIC vs ~600 Gb/s on TCP at which point both are probably bottlenecking on your per-core memory bandwidth anyways.
No, this is very much not the same. The Raku version is like writing this in Python:
def fibonacci():
a, b = 0, 1
while True:
yield a
a, b = b, a+b
And taking the 40th element. It's not comparable at all to the benchmark, that's deliberately an extremely slow method of calculating fibonacci numbers for the purpose of the benchmark. For this version, it's so fast that the time is dominated by the time needed to start up and tear down the interpreter.
Your argument is that it’s not ok to think of all Jewish people as a monolithic group, and therefore his statement where he considered all arabs as a monolithic group is ”legitimate”? Seriously?
Just like it’s not ok to see all jews as part of the same murderous conspiracy, it’s not ok to see all arabs as part of one either.
You can absolutely save data like that, it's just that it's a terrible idea. There are obvious portability concerns issues: little-endian vs. big endian, 32-bit vs. 64-bit, struct padding, etc.
Essentially, this system works great if you know the exact hardware and compiler toolchain, and you never expect to upgrade it with things that might break memory layout. Obviously this does not hold for Word: it was written originally in a 32-bit world and now we live in a 64-bit one, MSVC has been upgraded many times, etc. There's also address space concern: if you embed your pointers, are you SURE that you're always going to be able to load them in the same place in the address space?
The overhead of deserialization is very small with a properly written file format, it's nowhere near worth the sacrifice in portability. This is not why Word is slow.
That is true, cap’n proto and flatbuffers are excellent realizations of this basic concept. But that’s very different thing from what the commenter is talking about Word doing in the 90s, of just memory-mapping the internal data structures and be done with it.
At which point you're not just memory mapping the file. And if the new version changes the size of the object, it doesn't pack in the same place in memory, so you have to repack before saving. Even serializing with versioning is very hard. Memory mapping is much worse. Several other comments indicate that I am not the only one with bad experiences here.
And because they’re new, we have plenty of homegrown internet retailers for competition. Personally, I avoid Amazon in favor of the others if at all possible, seems like there’s a really significant risk Amazon is going to wipe them out.
For me it's problematic though. Sometimes I want some small gadget, and I just can't find it elsewhere. The other day I wanted a female-female connector for network cables and I couldn't find it on my Swedish go-to place for tech stuff, Kjell&Co. Instantly found lots of alternatives on Amazon.
eBay might have some similar problems as Amazon (fly-by-night retailers from China etc), but at least it doesn't pretend otherwise.
Or from Denmark, but delivery is probably expensive. (Within-EU delivery costs is something I'd like to see the EU improve, to allow smaller businesses to compete internationally with Amazon etc.)
Yeah, I do this on occassion as well, but I aleays try the Swedish retailers first, and only go to Amazon when I can’t find whatever I’m looking for. It’s pretty rare I have to go to Amazon.
It’s rough, because you know that it will probably be cheaper and delivered faster from Amazon, at the moment it is probably the most consumer friendly place to buy. But you know once the honeymoom is over and all the Swedish retailers are gone, it’s just going to devolve to garbage. Support your non-Amazon retailers!
I was wondering about the water and sewage pipes the author mentioned going through these unheated areas. Are the pipes heated? Or just so well-insulated that the contents doesn't have time to freeze before reaching their destination?
