You are missing the point. Condescending dick-waving is there to discourage original poster from making half-assed assertive comments in the future. I understand that you don't like it, but it is the most efficient way to carry the point across.
> Here, let me take a stab at it:
Nope. Wishy-washy, excuse me this, excuse me that, I'm pretty certain to a degree that I might be right if you don't mind me saying. Not discouraging enough.
If you want another justification for the tone, let me tell you that I would've not hesitate to say the exact same thing in person, which is the criteria for wording HN comments as per pg's original guidelines.
> "I would've not hesitate to say the exact same thing in person, which is _the_ criteria for wording HN comments"
That is the second criteria. Immediately preceding it is "Be civil." Shortly after is an example: "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Intentionally using an aggressive and insulting tone seems more harmful to the community than expressing the opinion that there is a performance gap between C and higher-level languages, but that gap is narrowing
How dangerous is that opinion, anyway? I mean, even if the opinion were demonstrably incorrect, is it so important to keep someone from daring to express it a second time?
There is real and legitimate compiler and JIT research, like PyPy, that could lead to reasonably efficient implementations for dynamic languages that can be expressed in RPython.
It is not, however, under any circumstances going to lead to code that's any faster than what an experienced C programmer can produce.
That's a "hard problem" in the mathematical sense is essentially impossible for reasons related to the halting problem and writing programs that can holistically analyze programs. For similar reasons, I find the type-fascism of the Haskell community amusing, although I find stronger type systems useful.
If aren't familiar with the implications and realities of systems programming and/or compiler implementation, stop making false statements about it.
Ask questions, read books, but don't toss out ridiculous bull-honkey like:
>thanks in particular to projects like cython that let you write python code that gets converted over and compiled as c++ that's often more performant than the c++ code that devs might write themselves.
I'm actually pretty familiar with Cython and have spent many man-hours optimizing Python code.
I'm a relatively terrible C++ and C programmer, but I can still produce code that profoundly outpaces Cython.
The only way to write C/C++ code slower than Cython is to use the wrong goddamn algorithm or data structure. (like std::list when you should be using std::vector)
Also, the protocol holds for me here too. I'd gladly say all of this to your face. Stop projecting manufactured confabulations about programming into the ether.
To be clear. I'm not the one who said anything about Cython or cross-compiling or anything. I hadn't even heard of Cython before and I don't have any strong opinions about it.
I don't doubt that you're right about all of the facts, that hand-rolled C will be faster than something cross-compiled unless the C coder did something profoundly wrong. I'm sure that lots of people are surprised and annoyed that all systems and kernel-level work is done with a language as out-of-fashion as C and ask stupid questions on other forums. You're right. The original poster was wrong. You win. Hooray!
But, here's the thing, I don't care how right you are, I care that you're violating the #1 commenting guideline and the thing that I generally like about this community, which is "be civil". So, even if you're the sort of person who wouldn't be civil to my face, please be civil here.
If you can do that much for me, I'll gladly buy you a coffee or beer if you're ever in Seattle and you can be as rude as you like to my face. Fair?
You're using the community guidelines as a shield to hide behind while you de-emphasize the fact that you were completely wrong and feigning to compensate for your total lack of experience in the relevant subject.
Stop using the community guidelines a shield. Own up to the fact that you were more than merely ignorant, you were aggressively promulgating and infecting others with falsehoods borne from your ignorance which is a kind of behavior I can't even begin to fathom the reasons for.
This is where it starts. This is how the incorrect campfire knowledge starts. CompSci and software engineering are rife with this plague and you are subject zero. CompSci is notorious for being, get this, unscientific because of the amount of false folk knowledge that gets bandied about.
Our lack of rigor, from the point of a view of an experimentalist and also an engineer, is dishonorable and unnecessary.
Your behavior shames all professional programmers.
So, lesson learned. I'll honey up my criticisms. I'll find ways to communicate that are pleasant and convincing.
That doesn't change that you'll never be free of my contempt, even if I'm being nice.
Keep the beer and coffee, you want to do me a favor? Don't ever do that again.
> Here, let me take a stab at it:
Nope. Wishy-washy, excuse me this, excuse me that, I'm pretty certain to a degree that I might be right if you don't mind me saying. Not discouraging enough.
If you want another justification for the tone, let me tell you that I would've not hesitate to say the exact same thing in person, which is the criteria for wording HN comments as per pg's original guidelines.