Re: [DISCUSS] Introducing Rust into the Git project

>
> On 2024-01-11 17:57, Elijah Newren wrote:
> > Hi Dragan,
>
> I apologize for my delayed response.

> > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 9:39 PM Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2024-01-11 01:33, Elijah Newren wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 1:57 PM Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Thus, Git should probably follow the same approach of not converting
> >> >> the
> >> >> already existing code
> >> >
> >> > I disagree with this.  I saw significant performance improvements
> >> > through converting some existing Git code to Rust.  Granted, it was
> >> > only a small amount of code, but the performance benefits I saw
> >> > suggested we'd see more by also doing similar conversions elsewhere.
> >> > (Note that I kept the old C code and then conditionally compiled
> >> > either Rust or C versions of what I was converting.)
> >>
> >> Well, it's also possible that improving the old C code could also
> >> result
> >> in some performance improvements.  Thus, quite frankly, I don't see
> >> that
> >> as a valid argument to rewrite some existing C code in Rust.
> >
> > Yes, and I've made many performance improvements in the C code in git.
> > Sometimes I make some of the code 5% or 20% faster.  Sometimes 1-3
> > orders of magnitude faster.  Once over 60 orders of magnitude
> > faster.[1]  Look around in git's history; I've done a fair amount of
> > performance stuff.
>
> Thank you very much for your work!
>
> > And I'm specifically arguing that I feel limited in some of the
> > performance work that can be done by remaining in C.  Part of my
> > reason for interest in Rust is exactly because I think it can help us
> > improve performance in ways that are far more difficult to achieve in
> > C.  And this isn't just guesswork, I've done some trials with it.
> > Further, I even took the time to document some of these reasons
> > elsewhere in this thread[2].  Arguing that some performance
> > improvements can be done in C is thus entirely missing the point.
> >
> > If you want to dismiss the performance angle of argument for Rust, you
> > should take the time to address the actual reasons raised for why it
> > could make it easier to improve performance relative to continuing in
> > C.
> >
> > Also, as a heads up since you seem to be relatively new to the list:
> > your position will probably carry more weight with others if you take
> > the time to understand, acknowledge, and/or address counterpoints of
> > the other party.  It is certainly fine to simply express some concerns
> > without doing so (Randall and Patrick did a good job of this in this
> > thread), but when you simply assert that the benefits others point out
> > simply don't exist (e.g. your "Quite frankly, that would _only_
> > complicate things and cause fragmentation." (emphasis added) from your
> > first email in this thread[3], and which this latest email of yours
> > somewhat looks like as well), others may well start applying a
> > discount to any positions you state.  Granted, it's totally up to you,
> > but I'm just giving a hint about how I think you might be able to be
> > more persuasive.
>
> I totally agree with your suggestions, and I'm thankful for the time it
> took you to write it all down.  I'll take your advice