Faster code might result in more CPU-usage not less, because the amount of real world value derived by the same amount of electricity increases.
That being said I'm all for more efficient & faster code.
1. Companies may do more with the same amount of CPU, more data, more calculations, despite per evaluation being faster.
2. Improved performance may make usage within reach of more end users
3. Improving widely used packages could reduce, especially those that are used in heavy calculations. With ML, we often see more improvement (reduced learning time) through algorithm research, so library improvements are only part of the story. Of course advances like Capsule Networks and encrypted learning sit in the queue because they are too expensive to compute today, but have great benefit to the outcomes.
Shouldn't you regenerate the list at least nightly to be up to date so people are not reading over issues potentially closed months ago?
My second question is what is driving the short list of technologies? You include Typescript and Javascript as seperate entries but no Ruby, Rust or C++ all of which jumped out to me but no doubt there is a much wider list of relevant technologies I am not thinking about as well.
It was generated today. 6.10, not 10.6. Fixed it.
> My second question is what is driving the short list of technologies?
I will add more languages.
No, we use the nonsense MM/DD/YYYY ordering (usually without leading 0s). 6 Oct would be 10/6/2021.
ISO/RFC 3339 YYYY-MM-DD is really the way to go…
A lot of the times, especially if the library is small, I find it more useful to just rewrite the whole thing. Or forking it with the performance patches and submit a PR, trying to convince people to make something faster with an issue doesn't work very well in my experience.
I believe moving python towards a more static type system, functional programming and transpilation to other languages is a good direction.
Surely there's a need for "implement <foo> in better machine code" work, in other languages and projects, no?
Interesting initiative.
