Skip to content
By using Twitter’s services you agree to our Cookies Use. We and our partners operate globally and use cookies, including for analytics, personalisation, and ads.
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • About

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
cmuratori's profile
Casey Muratori
Casey Muratori
Casey Muratori
@cmuratori

Tweets

Casey Muratori

@cmuratori

I'm worried that the baby thinks people can't change.

Seattle
caseymuratori.com
Joined March 2009

Tweets

  • © 2021 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    1. Casey Muratori‏ @cmuratori 4 Mar 2020
      Replying to @cmuratori @Jonathan_Blow and

      But the term "zero cost" should be retired because it gives people (especially those that don't know how to look at compiler output!) a false sense of security that they are not creating inefficient programs by employing a particular feature, when often times they actually are.

      1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes
    2. Casey Muratori‏ @cmuratori 4 Mar 2020
      Replying to @cmuratori @Jonathan_Blow and

      It doesn't necessarily mean they should do that, because maybe they don't have time / aren't capable of / etc. doing the optimal thing. But there's a difference between _choosing_ to make inefficient code, and _not knowing_ you made inefficient code.

      1 reply 1 retweet 15 likes
    3. Casey Muratori‏ @cmuratori 4 Mar 2020
      Replying to @cmuratori @Jonathan_Blow and

      Yet another way to say it would be to say that "zero cost abstractions" are often "zero cost" in the same way that watching a movie on Netflix is "zero cost". It's only "zero cost" if you don't count the $15/mo subscription fee, the fact that the selection is limited, etc.

      2 replies 2 retweets 8 likes
    4. Kyle J Strand‏ @BatmanAoD 4 Mar 2020
      Replying to @cmuratori @Jonathan_Blow and

      That analogy makes sense to me. Indeed, in C++, "zero cost" usually means "you couldn't have written better C++ by hand", not "you couldn't have written better assembly by hand".

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    5. Casey Muratori‏ @cmuratori 4 Mar 2020
      Replying to @BatmanAoD @Jonathan_Blow and

      Again, just to be clear, _you could_ have written better C++ by hand. That was the point of the monomorphization - what the compiler generates is not as good as if you have manually written what you wanted, because you can make better "commonization" tradeoffs.

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    6. Casey Muratori‏ @cmuratori 4 Mar 2020
      Replying to @cmuratori @BatmanAoD and

      "Zero cost" is literally just false. It's not true that it's zero cost over C++, and it's not true that it's zero cost over asm. It's just plain wrong. Things should just be called abstractions, never "zero cost" abstractions because they aren't, and that's that.

      2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes
    7. Kyle J Strand‏ @BatmanAoD 4 Mar 2020
      Replying to @cmuratori @Jonathan_Blow and

      That's an extremely interesting claim. I have no idea how to evaluate it, though; would you recommend just comparing the assembly generated by template-heavy code to some hand-written code doing the same thing? Do you have an example of a specific resource you could point me to?

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    8. Casey Muratori‏ @cmuratori 4 Mar 2020
      Replying to @BatmanAoD @Jonathan_Blow and

      Not to beat a dead horse, but evaluating my claim that there _aren't_ "zero cost abstractions" is also approaching the problem the wrong way around. Shouldn't the goal be to evaluate the _original_ claim that there _are_ zero cost abstractions?

      1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes
    9. Casey Muratori‏ @cmuratori 4 Mar 2020
      Replying to @cmuratori @BatmanAoD and

      One thing you will notice if you look at it, is that basically nobody who claims to provide a "zero cost abstraction" ever offers any proof that it is. They just say something like "and the compiler can do it" and that's it. But where is the evidence? Where are the case studies?

      1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes
    10. Casey Muratori‏ @cmuratori 4 Mar 2020
      Replying to @cmuratori @BatmanAoD and

      The onus shouldn't be on people to prove that something _isn't_ "zero cost", it should be on the people claiming it's "zero cost" to prove that it _is_, right? And that proof is nowhere to be found.

      1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes
      Casey Muratori‏ @cmuratori 4 Mar 2020
      Replying to @cmuratori @BatmanAoD and

      And it's worth noting that the original claim is _very_ bold. They're not called "low cost abstractions", they're called "_zero_ cost abstractions". A claim that something is literally free should require a high level of proof. Yet it's quite the opposite.

      5:03 PM - 4 Mar 2020
      • 1 Retweet
      • 6 Likes
      • JK_Kross HaroldReyiz ᜶ ᜀᜅ᜔ ᜉᜉᜇᜓᜈᜒ ᜶ Ivan Braidi Optimus Subprime Ron ChanOu
      3 replies 1 retweet 6 likes
        1. New conversation
        2. Bryan W. Wagner‏ @bryanww 4 Mar 2020
          Replying to @cmuratori @BatmanAoD and

          Are you suggesting Google Stadia's "negative latency" is not based on actual time travel science?

          2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
        3. Optimus Subprime‏ @jtrberg 4 Mar 2020
          Replying to @bryanww @cmuratori and

          It’s based on actual time travel science fiction.

          0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
        4. End of conversation
        1. gingerBill‏ @TheGingerBill 5 Mar 2020
          Replying to @cmuratori @BatmanAoD and

          TANSTAAFL

          0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
          Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
          Undo
        1. New conversation
        2. Kyle J Strand‏ @BatmanAoD 5 Mar 2020
          Replying to @cmuratori @Jonathan_Blow and

          Kyle J Strand Retweeted Kyle J Strand

          Well, again, it was never intended to mean "literally free"; and, yes, it's a terrible term. But there are some abstractions that _are_ free; for instance, without exception support, Rust's `Box` can result in exactly the same code as a raw pointer:https://twitter.com/BatmanAoD/status/1235750716334960640 …

          Kyle J Strand added,

          Kyle J Strand @BatmanAoD
          Replying to @BatmanAoD @Jonathan_Blow and 5 others
          That was good! I hadn't realized just how bad C++'s abstractions are, and clearly I'm not the only one. The examples seem pretty specific to the flaws of C++, though. By comparison, in Rust...
          2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
        3. Casey Muratori‏ @cmuratori 5 Mar 2020
          Replying to @BatmanAoD @Jonathan_Blow and

          I'm going to tune out of this discussion now, but again, no one is arguing that abstractions don't _sometimes_ result in the optimal code. The point is they don't _always_ result in the optimal code. The fact that Rust occasionally produces the right thing is irrelevant.

          2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes
        4. Show replies

      Loading seems to be taking a while.

      Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

        Promoted Tweet

        false

        • © 2021 Twitter
        • About
        • Help Center
        • Terms
        • Privacy policy
        • Cookies
        • Ads info