969
Making a difference, one date at a time.
(lemmy.world)
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
If I'm understanding you correctly, they're basically doing the same thing as Python under the hood and using a heap-allocated array (vector) of pointers? If so, that should still be orders of magnitude faster than a linked list.
If their implementation is actually a linked list, colour me shocked. My impression was that JavaScript is "decently fast". I've never even considered writing high-performance code in it, but I've heard that the compiler can optimise extremely aggressively, and it's used so widely that I couldn't imagine that it had glaring performance issues like what I would expect to see if every array was actually a linked list under the hood.
can't a jit move things around enough that a linked list could be transformed into a memory-backed array if the access pattern requires it.
Sure it can, as long as it retains behaviour according to whatever standard it needs to comply to. My point was rather that I would be very surprised if the actual implementation (at memory level) was a linked list.