Rochus, your point about LLVM and the 'upper bound' of C optimization is a bit of a bitter pill for systems engineers. In my own work, I often hit that wall where I'm trying to express high-level data intent (like vector similarity semantics) but end up fighting the optimizer because it can't prove enough about memory aliasing or data alignment to stay efficient.
I agree with guenthert that higher-level intent should theoretically allow for better optimization, but as you said, without the decades of investment that went into the C backends, it's a David vs. Goliath situation.
The 'spiraling complexity' of LLVM you mentioned is exactly why some of us are looking back at leaner designs. For high-density data tasks (like the 5.2M documents in 240MB I'm handling), I'd almost prefer a language that gives me more predictable, transparent control over the machine than one that relies on a million-line optimizer to 'guess' what I'm trying to do. It feels like we are at a crossroads between 'massive compilers' and 'predictable languages' again.
That benchmark is a great data point, thanks for sharing. The performance parity with unoptimized GCC makes sense, given how much heavy lifting modern LLVM/GCC backends do for C++.
Your approach with Micron and the 'language levels' is particularly interesting. One of the biggest hurdles I face in C++ with these high-density vector tasks is exactly that: balancing the raw 'unsafe' pointer arithmetic needed for SIMD and custom memory layouts with the safety needed for the rest of the application.
Having those features controlled at the module level (like your Micron levels) sounds like a much cleaner architectural 'contract' than the scattered unsafe blocks or reinterpret_cast mess we often deal with in systems programming. I'll definitely keep an eye on the Micron repository—bridging that gap between Wirth-style safety and C-level performance is something the industry is still clearly struggling with (even with Rust's rise).
It's refreshing to see Oberon getting some love on the Pi. There’s a certain 'engineering elegance' in the Wirthian school of thought that we’ve largely lost in modern systems.
While working on a C++ vector engine optimized for 5M+ documents in very tight RAM (240MB), I often find myself looking back at how Oberon handled resource management. In an era where a 'hello world' app can pull in 100MB of dependencies, the idea of a full OS that is both human-readable and fits into a few megabytes is more relevant than ever.
Rochus, since you’ve worked on the IDE and the kernel: do you think the strictness of Oberon’s type system and its lean philosophy still offers a performance advantage for modern high-density data tasks, or is it primarily an educational 'ideal' at this point?
I think EnPissant has a point regarding the overhead. Mapping semantic dependencies at the patch layer sounds great in theory, but the computational cost of resolving those graphs in a repository with thousands of changes is non-trivial.
In my work with high-performance engines, 'on-the-fly' graph resolution is usually the first thing to hit a performance wall compared to simple snapshot-based lookups. Pijul is a brilliant experiment in Category Theory applied to VCS, but until it can demonstrate that it doesn't degrade linearly with history size, Git's 'dumb' but fast snapshots will likely win the network effect battle.
I really agree with jandrewrogers' point about the insularity of the database domain. While working on a custom C++ engine to handle 10M vectors in minimal RAM, I’ve noticed that many 'mainstream' concurrency patterns simply don't scale when cache-locality is your primary bottleneck.
In the DB world, we often trade complex locking for deterministic ordering or latch-free structures, but translating those to general-purpose app code (like what this Rust crate tries to do) is where the friction happens. It’s great to see more 'DB-style' rigour (like total ordering for locks) making its way into library design.
I agree with guenthert that higher-level intent should theoretically allow for better optimization, but as you said, without the decades of investment that went into the C backends, it's a David vs. Goliath situation.
The 'spiraling complexity' of LLVM you mentioned is exactly why some of us are looking back at leaner designs. For high-density data tasks (like the 5.2M documents in 240MB I'm handling), I'd almost prefer a language that gives me more predictable, transparent control over the machine than one that relies on a million-line optimizer to 'guess' what I'm trying to do. It feels like we are at a crossroads between 'massive compilers' and 'predictable languages' again.