On Monday, June 23, 2014, Daniel Micay <[email protected]> wrote:
> Rust is not a language designed for an imaginary sufficiently smart > compiler. It targets real architectures and the real LLVM backend. > I hate to keep throwing hypotheticals at you, but here's another one: what if Apple invests in LLVM development which improves the performance of Swift semantics? To be clear, Swift semantics eschew the dichotomy of checked overflow vs the fast path. Swift offers both, but makes the "safe" operators the default. With safe operators as the default, and Swift being marketed as a performance-oriented language, Apple is incentivized to optimize Swift's overflow handling for performance. They have the resources, expertise, and connections to make these sorts of changes to LLVM. I know it's a gamble, but if you "borrowed" Swift's semantics, wouldn't you potentially reap a free lunch from what Apple contributes upstream to LLVM to better optimize Swift? I don't have the crystal ball. Maybe Apple won't submit anything upstream to LLVM in this regard. Maybe Swift will be a dud. But if Swift succeds, and Rust were to adopt similar semantics, and Apple were to submit its LLVM optimizations for this upstream, I feel like Rust could reap many of the benefits too. -- Tony Arcieri
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
