Adage made by Niklaus Wirth in 1995:
«Software is getting slower more rapidly than hardware becomes faster»
Do you think it's actually true?
How should you measure "speed" of software? By CPU cycles or rather by time you need to complete some task?
What about software that is actually getting faster and leaner (measured by CPU cycles and MB of RAM) and more responsive with new versions, like Firefox 3.0 compared with 2.0, Linux 2.6 compared with 2.4, Ruby 1.9 compared to 1.8. Or completely new software that is order of magnitude faster then old stuff (like Google's V8 Engine)? Doesn't it negate that law?
Yes I think it is true.
How do I measure the speed of software? Well time to solve tasks is a relevant indicator. For me as a user of software I do not care whether there are 2 or 16 cores in my machine. I want my OS to boot fast, my programs to start fast and I absolutely do not want to wait for simple things like opening files to be done. A software has to just feel fast.
So .. when booting Windows Vista there is no fast software I am watching.
Software / Frameworks often improve their performance. That's great but these are mostly minor changes. The exception proves the rule :)
In my opinion it is all about feeling. And it feels like computers have been faster years ago. Of course I couldn't run the current games and software on those old machines. But they were just faster :)
It's not that software becomes slower, it's that its complexity increases.
We now build upon many levels of abstraction.
When was the last time people on SO coded in assembly language?
Most never have and never will.
It is wrong. Correct is
Software is getting slower at the same rate as hardware becomes faster.
The reason is that this is mostly determined by human patience, which stays the same.
It also neglects to mention that the software of today does more than 30 years ago, even if we ignore eye candy.
In general, the law holds true. As you have stated, there are exceptions "that prove the rule". My brother recently installed Win3.1 on his 2GHz+ PC and it boots in a blink of an eye.
I guess there are many reasons why the law holds:
Many programmers entering the profession now have never had to consider limited speed / resourced systems, so they never really think about the performance of their code.
There's generally a higher importance on getting the code written for deadlines and performance tuning usually comes last after bug fixing / new features.
I find FF's lack of immediate splash dialog annoying as it takes a while for the main window to appear after starting the application and I'm never sure if the click 'worked'. OO also suffers from this.
There are a few articles on the web about changing the perception of speed of software without changing the actual speed.
EDIT:
In addition to the above points, an example of the low importance given to efficiency is this site, or rather, most of the other Q&A sites. This site has always been developed to be fast and responsive and it shows. Compare this to the other sites out there - I've found phpBB based sites are flexible but slow. Google is another example of putting speed high up in importance (it even tells you how long the search took) - compare with other search engines that were around when google started (now, they're all fast thanks to google).
It takes a lot of effort, skill and experience to make fast code which is something I found many programmers lack.
From my own experience, I have to disagree with Wirth's law.
When I first approached a computer (in the 80'), the time for displaying a small still picture was perceptible. Today my computer can decode and display 1080p AVCHD movies in realtime.
Another indicator is the frames per second of video games. Not long ago it used to be around 15fps. Today 30fps to 60 fps are not uncommon.
Quoting from a UX study:
The technological advancements of 21 years have placed modern PCs in a completely different league of varied capacities. But the “User Experience” has not changed much in two decades. Due to bloated code that has to incorporate hundreds of functions that average users don’t even know exist, let alone ever utilize, the software companies have weighed down our PCs to effectively neutralize their vast speed advantages.
Detailed comparison of UX on a vintage Mac and a modern Dual Core: http://hubpages.com/hub/_86_Mac_Plus_Vs_07_AMD_DualCore_You_Wont_Believe_Who_Wins
One of the issues of slow software is a result of most developers using very high end machines with multicore CPUs and loads of RAM as their primary workstation. As a result they don't notice performance issues easily.
Part of their daily activity should be running their code on slower more mainstream hardware that the expected clients will be using. This will show the real world performance and allow them to focus on improving bottlenecks. Or even running within a VM with limited resources can aid in this review.
Faster hardware shouldn't be an excuse for creating slow sloppy code, however it is.
My machine is getting slower and clunkier every day. I attribute most of the slowdown to running antivirus. When I want to speed up, I find that disabling the antivirus works wonders, although I am apprehensive like being in a seedy brothel.
I think that Wirth's law was largely caused by Moore's law - if your code ran slow, you'd just disregard since soon enough, it would run fast enough anyway. Performance didn't matter.
Now that Moore's law has changed direction (more cores rather than faster CPUs), computers don't actually get much faster, so I'd expect performance to become a more important factor in software development (until a really good concurrent programming paradigm hits the mainstream, anyway). There's a limit to how slow software can be while still being useful, y'know.
Yes, software nowadays may be slower or faster, but you're not comparing like with like. The software now has so much more capability, and a lot more is expected of it.
Lets take as an example: Powerpoint. If I created a slideshow with Powerpoint from the early nineties, I can have a slideshow with pretty colours fairly easily, nice text etc. Now, its a slideshow with moving graphics, fancy transitions, nice images.
The point is, yes, software is slower, but it does more.
The same holds true of the people who use the software. back in the 70s, to create a presentation you had to create your own transparencies, maybe even using a pen :-). Now, if you did the same thing, you'd be laughed out of the room. It takes the same time, but the quality is higher.
This (in my opinion) is why computers don't give you gains in productivity, because you spend the same amount of time doing 'the job'. But if you use todays software, your results looks more professional, you gain in quality of work.
Skizz and Dazmogan have it right.
On the one hand, when programmers try to make their software take as few cycles as possible, they succeed, and it is blindingly fast.
On the other hand, when they don't, which is most of the time, their interest in "Galloping Generality" uses up every available cycle and then some.
I do a lot of performance tuning. (My method of choice is random halting.) In nearly every case, the reason for the slowness is over-design of class and data structure.
Oddly enough, the reason usually given for excessively event-driven and redundant data structure is "efficiency".
As Bompuis says, we build upon many layers of abstraction. That is exactly the problem.
Yes it holds true. You have given some prominent examples to counter the thesis, but bear in mind that these examples are developed by a big community of quite knowledgeable people, who are more or less aware of good practices in programming.
People working with the kernel are aware of different CPU's architectures, multicore issues, cache lines, etc. There is an interesting ongoing discussion about inclusion of hardware performance counters support in the mainline kernel. It is interesting from the 'political' point of view, as there is a conflict between the kernel people and people having much experience in performance monitoring.
People developing Firefox understand that the browser should be "lightweight" and fast in order to be popular. And to some extend they manage to do a good job.
New versions of software are supposed to be run on faster hardware in order to have the same user experience. But whether the price is just? How can we asses whether the functionality was added in the efficient way?
But coming back to the main subject, many of the people after finishing their studies are not aware of the issues related to performance, concurrency (or even worse, they do not care). For quite a long time Moore law was providing a stable performance boost. Thus people wrote mediocre code and nobody even noticed that there was something wrong with inefficient algorithms, data-structures or more low-level things.
Then some limitations came into play (thermal efficiency for example) and it is no longer possible to get 'easy' speed for few bucks. People who just depend on hardware performance improvements might get a cold shower. On the other hand, people who have in-depth knowledge of algorithms, data structures, concurrency issues (quite difficult to recruit these...) will continue to write good applications and their value on the job market will increase.
The Wirth law should not only be interpreted literally, it is also about poor code bloat, violating the keep-it-simple-stupid rule and people who waste the opportunity to use the 'faster' hardware.
Also if you happen to work in the area of HPC then these issues become quite obvious.
In some cases it is not true: the frame rate of games and the display/playing of multimedia content is far superior today than it was even a few years ago.
In several aggravatingly common cases, the law holds very, very true. When opening the "My Computer" window in Vista to see your drives and devices takes 10-15 seconds, it feels like we are going backward. I really don't want to start any controversy here but it was that as well as the huge difference in time needed to open Photoshop that drove me off of the Windows platform and on to the Mac. The point is that this slowdown in common tasks is serious enough to make me jump way out of my former comfort zone to get away from it.
Can´t find the sense. Why is this sentence a law?
You never can compare Software and Hardware, they are too different.
Hardware is genuine material and Software is a written code.
The connection is only that Software has to control the performance of Hardware. After an executed step in Hardware the Software needs a completion-sign, so the next order of Software can be done.
Why should I slow down Software? We allways try to make it faster !
It´s a lot of things to do in real physical way to make Hardware faster (changing print-modules or even physical parts of a computer).
It may be senseful,if Wirth means: to do this in one computer (= one Software- and Hardware-System).
To get a higher speed of Hardware it´s necessary to know the function of the Hardware, amount of parallel inputs or outputs at one moment and the frequency of possible switches in one second. Last not least it´s important that different Hardware-prints have the same or with a numeric factor multiplicated frequeny.
So perhaps the Software may slow down automaticaly very easy if You change something in the Hardware. - Wirth was thinking much more in Hardware, he is one of the great inventors since the computer is existing in the German-speaking area.
The other way is not easy. You have to know the System-Software of a computer very exactly to make the Hardware faster by changing the Software (=System-Software, Machine-Programs) of a computer. And if You use more layers you nearly have no direct influence in the speed of the Hardware.
Perhaps this may be the explanation of Wirth´s Law-Thinking....I got it!
Related
There is some feeling about the CPUs manufactured today does not meet Moores Law anymore, at least for single threaded performance.
I wonder what kind of workloads we have to worry if single threaded performance does not scale.
Breaking a text to lines and pages is a quite serial work, but on the other hand any human readable books or pages are quite finite length and handled by current text processing algorithms.
"Bureaucracy code" (the code that makes new versions of Word feel sluggish over decades despite exponential CPU performance increase) do stagnate either in my opinion (the programmers can't handle abitrary complexity and the large software companies finally joined some battle for performance in mobile computing).
So what kind of algorithms at all would hurt us if single thread performance increase would come to an end?
What you call "bureaucracy code" is not slow because the developers cannot handle the complexity anymore (todays WinWord isn't that more complex than a decade past). The cause for Word (used as an example here) feeling as stagnant as always is that developers do not develop in a vacuum, but there is money and time involved. I.e., real-world developers always take shortcuts wherever they can. Word will always be just as sluggy as before because it will always just skim the line between usability and annoyance, when running on an average consumer device. Using more CPU makes it more "sexy" (more sales). Making it faster will cost more while not really increasing sales. The project management has the top-level goal of making as much money as possible.
A contrary example would be NASA using stone-age CPUs for their spaceships - they don't bother about money, they have other goals (like stability/fault tolerance), and those goals are not helped by a huge overhead of CPU power.
"Worry" is never useful, in no aspect of life, so I would not worry. Can you rephrase what you actually mean? If you mean to ask if there will be some kind of global problem if/when Moore's Law comes to an end, then no, unless you happen to work in a part of industry that turns obsolete, you have nothing to worry about.
This question came up:
You're searching for bottlenecks in your game, but nothing you're changing is making the game any faster, be it anything in the GPU pipeline or the CPU. Nothing is spiking, and the slowness appears to be distributed across everywhere. What do you do next?
I was flummoxed. Is it a trick question? When fixing perf issues, I always assume that this was the point at which you need to scale everything back. I don't think it's mem alloc, as that shows up in CPU perf.
I would have asked for more information. "Slow" is a poor indicator of bad performance and is a classification of a symptom rather than a symptom itself. For example, you might describe "slow" as being:
Low frame rate
Poor responsiveness to input
High responsiveness and smooth framerate, but slow game mechanics (i.e.: the player and entities move smoothly but very slowly)
In the case of networked games, apparent network lag
All of these problems have different potential causes and solutions:
Low but consistent frame rate may be due to inefficiencies in your game loop. Simply running your favorite profiler may indicate that large amounts of time are spent in one particular piece of code. In a game I wrote, for instance, I discovered that low FPS was the result of a bad loop that calculated distances between entities multiple times without caching. In another game, I discovered that the data structure I was using to perform lookups against the terrain was O(N) rather than O(1) (python stdlib...ick). You can't diagnose a problem you can't see, and profiling is the first line of defense.
Poor responsiveness may be due to a number of things. If the FPS is high but the controls are sluggish to respond, the API that you're using to access the controls may simply be bad. Some controllers may have crappy drivers that can kill responsiveness. It might even be your game loop: you might simply not be checking for input from the controller frequently enough (perhaps you're not checking on every tick). In one of the aforementioned games, I had an issue where certain actions had a delayed effect: you'd use an item and the game would respond a half second or so later. It turned out that the issue was caused by the client making a full round-trip to the server to perform the action, verify that it happened, and wait for the server to broadcast back that the item was used. Simply having the behavior take place instantaneously on the client remedied the issue.
Slow game mechanics might indicate that game constants simply aren't set high enough. If everything is smooth and beautiful but everything just moves very slowly, it's quite possible that default velocities or accelerations aren't turned up enough.
Network lag can be caused by any number of things: the router you're connected to might be failing, the VPS you're developing against might be on a host that's being DDoSed, you might be using a protocol that's overly (but uniformly) chatty, or you're simply sending too much data over the wire. In a piece of simulation software I wrote in college, the computations were performed on some beefy computers in a lab, while the visualizations were being run on my MBP in my dorm. It turned out that the sheer amount of data that I was sending from the lab computers to my dorm was enough to overload the cheap network switches in the building and drop packets, resulting in horrible lag but perfectly reasonable log output.
So I guess the answer here is to have the interviewer describe the symptoms more fully. #Ali's answer is great, but it could be that there's a more nuanced problem at hand that requires some coaxing to diagnose.
You're searching for bottlenecks in your game, but nothing you're
changing is making the game any faster, be it anything in the GPU
pipeline or the CPU. Nothing is spiking, and the slowness appears to
be distributed across everywhere.
It pretty much sounds like the definition of Uniformly Slow Code. Let's assume it is really what is meant by this (and not some I/O bottleneck or creation of unnecessary objects in a loop or some poor choice for the datastructures or for the algorithms, etc).
To make a uniformly slow code faster, you usually have to go against good practices, and that is why I usually stop optimizing my code when it is uniformly slow. (I suppose "stop optimizing" is not a good answer at an interview...)
One way to make things faster is to identify an appropriate sequence of small operations, collect them together in one place, and then manually improve the things; sort of "manually inlining" these operations then doing high-level simplifications on the code that emerges. It requires good intuition where this might be worth doing and excellent understanding of the involved code. This answer calls it bunching and horizontal optimization.
Another thing that might be worth looking into if your really have uniformly slow code is Andrei Alexandrescu's optimization tips.
Maybe this is about thinking about more efficient algorithms. "Micro-optimization" has its limits; you can perfectly optimize a bubble sort, for example, but to get real big speedup you'd invent another sorting algorithm.
Also, in games you may introduce different kinds of adjustable quality/speed (or precision/speed) tradeoffs. Typically all games have some settings that change graphic detail level.
anecdotal:
i can tell you what the problem is without actually knowing the answer to the question ;p
sloppy directx calls. too many objects. especially bad on some old dx9 games, since dx9 needed to make a new directdraw call for every object. or something like that, the story goes. basically resulted in the cpu waiting idle for the gpu to process all the messages.
although def not the solution to every issue, i though it was worth mentioning as an interesing piece of information ;p didn't see it in the other comments.
it's almost like having too many pixel shaders, except at least the gpu works at 100% with a mass of those :D good for frying omelettes. (also, using occlusion to save performance and then adding a mass of pixel shaders to that model is a BAD idea)
i hope you can see the humor in this ;p
I work with many people that program video games for a living. I have a quite a bit of knowledge in C++ and I know a number of general performance strategies to utilize in day to day programming. Like using prefix ++/-- over post fix.
My problem is that often times people come to me to give them tips on general optimizations they can do on a regular basis when programming, but often times these people program in all sorts of languages. Some use C++, C#, Java, ActionScript, etc.
I am wondering if there are any general performance tips that can be utilized on a day by day programming basis? For example, I would suggest prefix ++/-- over postfix for people programming in another language, but I am just not sure if that is true.
My guess is that it is language specific and the best way to go about general optimizations is to make sure you are not using majorly bloated algorithms, but maybe someone has some advice.
Without going into language specifics, or even knowing whether this is embedded, web, CAD, game, or iPhone programming, there isn't much that can be said. All we know is that there's multiple languages involved, and for some unknown reason performance is always slower than desirable.
First, check your algorithms. A slow algorithm can cause horrible performance. Read up on algorithms and their complexity.
Second, note if there are any really slow operations, such as hitting a database or transmitting information or moving a robot arm. See if the program is doing more of those than it should.
Third, profile. If there's a section of code that's taking 5% of the time, no optimization will make your program more than 5% faster. If a section of code is taking a lot of the time, it's worth looking at.
Fourth, get somebody who knows what they're doing to make any specific optimizations. Test them when they're done to make sure they actually speed up performance. When performance was an issue, I've improved it with some counterintuitive measures, like rolling up loops.
I don't think you can generalize optimization as such. To optimize execution time, you need to dig deep into the language and understand how things work in detail. Just guessing or making assumptions on experiences with other languages won't work! For example, writing x = x << 1 instead of x = x*2 might be a big benefit in C++. In JavaScript it will slow you down.
With all the differences between all the languages it's hard to find generic optimization tips. Maybe for some languages which are similar (f.ex. C# and Java). But if you add both JavaScript and Python to that list I'm pretty sure not many common optimization techniques will be left over.
Also keep in mind that premature optimization is often considered bad practice. Developer-hours are much more expensive than buying additional hardware.
However, there is one thing which comes to mind. Over the past decade or so, Object Relational Mappers have become quite popular. And hence, they emerge(d) in pretty much all popular languages. But you have to be careful with those. It's easy to load tons of data into memory that you will never use in your code if not properly configured. Keep that in mind. Lazy loading might be of some help here. But your mileage will vary.
Optimization depends on so many things that answering such a generic question would make this post explode into a full-fledged paper. In my opinion, optimization should be regarded on a project-by-project basis. Not only Language-by-Language basis.
I think you need to split this into two separate questions:
1) Are there language-agnostic ways to find performance problems? YES. Profile, but avoid the myths around that subject.
2) Are there language-agnostic ways to fix performance problems? IT DEPENDS.
A general language-agnostic principle is: do (1) before you do (2).
In other words, Ready-Aim-Fire, not Ready-Fire-Aim.
Here's an example of performance tuning, in C, but it could be any language.
A few things I have learned since asking this:
I/O operations are usually the most expensive to performance. This holds especially true when you are doing disk or network I/O (which is usually the most expensive because if you have to wait for a response from the other host you have to wait for all processing and I/O operations the remote host does). Only do these operations when absolutely necessary and possibly consider using a cache when possible.
Database operations can be very expensive because of network/disk I/O and the translation time to and from SQL. Using in-memory DB or cache can help reduce I/O issues and some (not all) NoSQL databases can reduce SQL translation time.
Only log important information. Using logging libraries like log4j can help because you can put logging to your hearts desire in your application but you set each message to a certain log level. Whichever log level you set the application to it will only log messages at that level or higher. This way if you need to troubleshoot functionality you only have to change a quick config and restart you application to give you additional messages. Then when you are done just turn you application back to the default level so that you do not log too often.
Only include functionality that is needed. Additional functionality may be nice to have but can increase processing time, provide additional locations for the application to fail, and costs your team development time that could be spent on more important tasks.
Use and configure your memory manager correctly. Garbage collection routines can kill performance if they are not configured correctly. If every minute you application freezes for a second or two for garbage collection your customer probably will not be happy.
Profile only after you have discovered a performance issue. Profilers will make the applications performance look worse than it is because you have your application and the profiler running on the same host, consuming the same hardware resources.
Do not prematurely do performance tuning. There are general practices you can take that should be better on performance in each language, but starting performance tuning in the middle of application development can cost you a lot on development because there is still functionality to be added.
This is not necessarily going to help performance but keep class dependency to a minimal. When you get into performance tuning there is good chance you will have to rewrite whole portions of code, which if there is a lot of dependencies on the section you are performance tuning the greater chance you will break the code. It can often be a domino affect because after fixing the performance issue than you have to fix all the dependencies, and possibly dependencies of the original dependencies. A performance tuning exercise estimate for a few hours can quickly turn into months with an application that has a lot of dependencies.
If performance is a concern do not use interpreted languages (scripting languages).
Only use the hardware you need. Having a system with a 64 core processor may seem cool but if you only have two or three threads running in your application than you are getting little benefit from having 64 cores. In fact, in rare instances having overly excessive hardware can sometimes hurt performance because the chips have to be wired to handle all the hardware which can cause your application to spend more time switching between cores or processors than actually being processed.
Any timing metrics you report make as granular as possible. Currently, you may only need to be worried about the number of milliseconds a process takes but in the future as you make your application faster and faster you may need more granular timings. If version A uses milliseconds and version B uses microseconds, how can you compare performance if version B is taking about the same number of milliseconds. Version B may be better but you just can't tell because version A did not use granular enough metrics.
following the text book, I do measure performance whenever I try optimizing my code. Sometimes, however, the performance gain is rather small and I can't decisively decide whether I should implement that optimization.
For example, when a fix shortens an average response time of 100ms to 90ms under some conditions, should I implement that fix? What if it shortens 200ms to 190ms? How many condition should I try before I can conclude that it will be beneficial overall?
I guess it's not possible to give a straight forward answer to this, as it depends on too many things, but is there a good rule of thumb that I should follow? Are there any guideline/best-practices?
EDIT:Thanks for the great answers! I guess the moral of the story is, there is no easy way to tell whether you should, but there ARE guidelines that can aid that process.. Things you should consider, things you shouldn't do etc. This particular time I ended up implementing the fix, even though it made a few line of code into 20-30 lines of code. Because our app. is very performance critical, and it was a consistent 10% gain in various realistic cases.
I think the rule of thumb (at least for me) is two-fold:
"It matters if it matters"--in the business world, this generally means that it matters if the clients care. That is, if the end users will "notice" the difference between 100ms and 90ms (I'm not being facetious here), then it matters.
If "it matters," then you will want to test your code thoroughly against a realistic variety of use cases that are likely to arise or at least may arise. If an optimization speeds up code in 50% of cases, but actually runs slower than what you previously had the other 50% of the time, obviously, it may not be worth implementing.
Regarding point 1 above: by suggesting an end user of your software might "notice" a 10ms difference, I don't mean to suggest that they will actually visibly see a difference. But if your app runs on a server with millions of connections and every little speed increase takes a substantial load off the server, that might matter to the client running the server. Or if your app performs extremely time-critical work, this is another case where the result of a 10ms speedup might be noticeable, even if the speedup itself isn't.
The only sensible approach to your question is something along the lines of "when the benefit is large enough to warrant the time you invest in exploring, implementing and testing the optimization."
The "benefit is large enough" is extremely subjective. Can you or your employer sell more units of software if you make this change? Will your user base notice? Will it give you personal gratification to have the fastest-possible code? Which of those or similar questions apply is something only you can know.
By and large, most of the software I have written (in a 20+ year career) has been "fast enough" out of the box, and the code I cared to optimize presented itself as an obvious bottleneck to the end users: Queries taking a long time, scrolling too slow, that sort of thing.
Donald Knuth made the following two statements on optimization:
"We should forget about small
efficiencies, say about 97% of the
time: premature optimization is the
root of all evil" [2]
and
"In established engineering
disciplines a 12 % improvement, easily
obtained, is never considered marginal
and I believe the same viewpoint
should prevail in software
engineering"[5]
src: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_optimization
Is the optimization obfuscating your code too much?
Do you really need an optimization? if your app just runs fine then readability of the code is probably more important
Did you work on the general design and algorithms of your application before trying small hacky optimizations?
You should focus optimisation efforts on the parts of code that account for the most runtime. If a particular piece of code takes up 80% of the total runtime, then optimising it to reduce the time is takes by 5% will have as much impact as reducing the time of the rest of the code by 20%.
In general, optimisations make code less readable (not always, but often). Therefore you should avoid optimising until you are sure that there is a problem.
If it speeds up your program at all, why not implement it? You have already done the work by creating the new implementation, so you are not doing extra work by applying the new implementation.
Unless the code is THAT much harder to understand.
Also, 100 ms to 90 ms is a 10% gain in performance. A 10% gain should not be taken lightly.
The real question is, if it only took 100 ms to run in the first place, what was the point in trying to optimize it?
As long as it's fast enough, then you don't need to optimise any more. But then, you wouldn't even bother profiling if that was the case...
If the performance gain is small, consider the other factors: maintainability, risk of making the change, understandability, etc. If it reduces the ability to maintain or understand the code, it probably isn't worth doing. If it improves those attributes, then it's more reason to implement the change.
In most cases, your time is more valuable than the computer's. If you think it'll take you half an hour longer to work out what the code is doing later (say if there's a bug in it), and it's only saved you a few seconds, ever, you're at a net loss.
It depends very much on the usage scenario. I'll assume here that the code in question has been profiled and thus it is known to be the bottleneck--i.e. not just "this could be faster", but "the program would give results/finish running faster if this were faster". In situations where this is not the case--e.g. if you spend 99% of your time waiting for more data to come over an ethernet connection--then you should care about correctness but not optimize for speed.
If you are writing a piece of user interface code, what you care about is perceived speed. Generally anything under ~100 ms is perceived as "instant"--no point speeding it up.
If you are writing a piece of code for a giant server farm, then if the cost of your salary to make the code fast is less than the cost of the extra electricity for the server farm, it's worthwhile. (But be sure to prioritize your time.)
If you are writing a piece of code that is used rarely or when unattended, as long as it completes in a semi-sane duration, don't worry about it. Install scripts tend to be of this sort (unless you start running into many minutes, at which point users might start abandoning the install because it's taking too long).
If you are writing code to automate a task for someone else, then if (your time spent coding + their time spent using the optimized code) is less than (their time spent using the slow code), it's worthwhile. If you're doing this in a commercial setting, weight this by your respective salaries.
If you are writing library code that will be used by many thousands of people, always make it faster if you have time to.
If you are under time pressure to simply have something working e.g. as a demo, don't optimize (except through sensible choice of algorithms from libraries) unless the result would be so slow that it isn't even "working".
One of the biggest annoyances for me personally is finding software which perhaps initially fell into one category and then later fell into another, but for which nobody went back to do needed optimizations. Until recently Javascript performance was a great example of this. Moral of the story is: don't just decide once; revisit the issue as the situation demands.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 13 years ago.
It seems that I often hear people criticize certain programming languages because they "have poor performance", or because some other language is "faster" in general (not necessarily for a specific application). However, my experience and education have taught me that anytime you have a performance problem, at least one of the following is probably happening:
The bottleneck isn't in the CPU, it's in some other device, such as the network or the hard drive.
The poor performance is caused by your algorithms, not by the language you're using.
My general impression is that the speed of a programming language itself is all but irrelevant in the vast majority of cases, with exceptions for serious data processing problems. Even in those cases, I believe you could use a hybrid approach and use a lower-level language only for the CPU-intensive pieces so that you wouldn't lose the benefits of the more abstract language altogether.
Do you agree? Is programming language speed insignificant most of the time, or do the critics have a right to point out language performance issues?
I hope this question isn't too subjective, but it seems to me that there should be a relatively objective answer to this.
Performance can be a serious concern in libraries, operating systems, and the like. However, I believe that upwards of 90% of the time raw performance is irrelevant.
What is more important in many cases is TIMING. Any garbage collected language is going to have some unpredictability in this regard, which makes them unsuited to embedded and realtime design spaces.
The overlap of GC'd and "slow" languages is considerable, and so you may see a language discounted for speed reasons when the real problem is inconsistent timing.
There are some allocation/threading/etc. schemes that allow for garbage collection while also guaranteeing the runtime of parts of the system, such as Realtime Java, though I haven't personally seen it in use anywhere.
Short answer: most of the time the speed of the language is irrelevant (within reason), language choices are made based on familiarity and available libraries.
Amazingly, the performance of a system is a combination of the programming language, the system it's executing on, the operations that system is performing and the external resources (network, disk, slow line printers, etc.) that it relies upon.
If your system is slow, rather than guessing, test it.
If there is any "Rule" in computing, it's "Test your assumptions". Everything else is gross guideline.
This is impossible to answer so broadly. It's like asking if big engines are a waste in cars. Well, for some people, yes. For others, not at all. And all sorts in between.
There are a myriad of factors that come in to play. What is your target environment? End-user deployment or servers? Let's suppose we're talking about web development and coding for a server. RoR is well-known to be (relatively) slow. .NET is pretty fast by comparison. But RoR also has RAD qualities that .NET can't compete with.
Is getting your app up-and-running yesterday more of a priority than scalability?
Does your business model live or die on the milliseconds you serve a page, or the time you went to market?
Does your TCO and application architecture support scaling out or scaling up? Do you even expect to need to scale up?
Those are just a tiny handful of the questions an architect has to answer when making platform/language decisions. Does speed matter? Sometimes. If I am planning to write a LoB service that will eventually need to scale to thousands of transactions per second, and it will be deployed in an enterprise environment, I will probably go with .NET. If I have an idea for a Web 2.0 business like selling Twitter teeshirts, I need to capitalize on that idea yesterday and I can know I probably won't get slammed with enough business to bring the site down before preparing for it.
This is honestly over-simplifying a very complex issue, but hopefully illustrated the point that it's impossible to simply "say" whether it matters or not.
I think it's a good question. To answer it requires having a general framework for thinking about performance, so let me try to provide one. (Some of this is going to sound really obvious, but bear with me.)
To keep things simple,
let's just consider the simple case of applications that have a specific job to do, and that start, and then finish, and what you care about is wall-clock time. Let's assume a standard CPU cycle rate, and a mono-processor.
The time duration consists of a stream of time-slices (nanoseconds, say). To do that job, there is a minimum amount of time required, and it is usually greater than zero. There is no maximum amount of time required. If a program spends longer than the minimum number of nanoseconds, then some of those nanoseconds are being spent, strictly speaking, unnecessarily (i.e. for poor reasons).
So, to optimize a program's execution time, it is necessary to find the nanoseconds it is spending that do not have to be spent (i.e. that do not have good reasons) and remove them.
One way to do this is to, if possible, step through the program and keep track at each step of why it is doing that step. If the reason is not good, there is an opportunity for removing steps.
Another way to do this is to select nanoseconds at random from the program's execution, and inquire their reasons. For example, the program counter can tell you what the program is doing, but the call stack can tell you why. In order for the nanosecond to be spent for a good reason, every call instruction on the call stack has to have a good reason. If any instruction on the call stack does not have a good reason, then there is an opportunity to optimize. In fact, the amount of time that instruction is on the call stack is the amount of time that would be saved by its removal.
In some kinds of software that are highly asynchronous, message-driven, or interpreted, the call stack may not provide enough information. In that case, to answer why a given nanosecond is being spent may be more difficult. It may require examining more state information than just the call stack. For example, in an interpreter, the stack of the program being interpreted may also need to be examined. However, often the hardware call stack does provide sufficient information, so it is a useful thing to examine.
Now, to try to answer your question.
There is such a thing as a "hot spot". This is a small set of addresses that are often at the bottom of the call stack. Nanoseconds spent in that code may or may not have good reasons.
There is such a thing as a "performance problem". This is an instruction that often accounts for why nanoseconds are being spent, but that does not have a good reason. Such an instruction may be in a hot spot. It may also be a subroutine call instruction. (It cannot be both.) It may be an instruction to send a message to be processed later, that does not have a good reason for being spent. To optimize software, such instructions (not functions) are what are being looked for.
Languages, loosely speaking, are either compiled into machine language or interpreted. Interpreted languages are usually 1 or 2 orders of magnitude slower than compiled, because they are constantly re-determining what they need to do. However, roughly speaking, this is only a performance problem if it occurs in a hot spot. If a program spends all its time calling compiled library functions, or waiting for I/O completions, then its speed of execution probably doesn't matter, because most of the nanoseconds are being spent for other reasons.
Now, certainly, any language or program can in principle be highly non-optimal, but in terms of compilers, for hotspot code, they are mostly pretty good, give or take maybe 30%. If there is a background process involved, like garbage collection, that adds an overhead, but it depends on the rate at which the program generates garbage.
So to sum up, the speed of a language matters in hotspot code, but not much elsewhere. When a program has been optimized by removal of all other performance problems, and if the hotspot code is actually seen by the compiler/interpreter, then speed of language matters.
Your question is framed very broadly, so I'll try to give a somewhat narrower answer:
Unless there is some good reason not to do so, the language for a project should always be chosen from among those languages that will help the project team be productive and produce reliable software that can easily be adapted for future needs. The tradeoffs generally favor high-level languages with automatic memory management.
N.B. There are plenty of good reasons to make other choices, such as compatibility with current products and libraries.
It sometimes happens that when a program is too slow, the quickest and easiest way to speed it up is to rewrite the program (or a critical part) in a new language. This happens most often when the implementation language is interpreted and the new language is compiled.
Example: I got about a 4x speedup out of the OSBF-Lua spam filter by rewriting the lexical analysis of the mail headers. By rewriting from Lua to C I not only went from interpreted to compiled but was able to eliminate an array-bounds check for every input character.
To answer your question as stated, it is not very often that language performance per se is an issue.