Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> The meaning was clear though.

Was it? You are telling me that it is actually possible to write faster code if it is unsafe, but for some reason it doesn't count as faster in your book, and therefore it's not compromising on speed ("just ignore the faster solutions").

With that kind of definition, all the code I ever wrote is provably optimal: if you ignore all the solutions that are more efficient than my code, then my code is the fastest.



Yes it was clear. Unsafe Rust is still Rust. I already explained that in some cases you can beat the compiler but there aren't any systematic overheads.

I think you understand at this point and are just nitpicking to avoid admitting it, so goodbye.


I started by saying "hmm, it's not exactly not compromising on speed, but it's better for some use-cases indeed".

You said "you're wrong, it is optimal".

Now you say "it is not optimal, but it is very good, and I think you are nitpicking when you say it is not optimal".

Sure, I'm nitpicking. I was nitpicking from the beginning on, I'm not sure what you were trying to say now.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: