by jerf | 2025-11-18 14:12:04+00:00
The problem with that context is that it is neither good, nor useful.

For good, an example that perhaps I should lift into the essay itself is probably more useful than an explanation. A year or two or so back, there was some article about the details of CGo or something like that. In the comments there was someone who was being quite a jerk about how much faster and better Python's C integration was. This person made several comments and was doing the whole "reply to literally everyone who disagrees", insulting the Go designers, etc. until finally someone put together the obvious microbenchmark and lo, Go was something like 25% faster than Python. Not blazingly faster, but being faster at all rather wrecked the thesis. Nor would it particularly matter that "this was a microbenchmark and those don't prove anything" as clearly the belief was that CGo was something like an order of magnitude slower if not more so even a single microbenchmark where Go won was enough to prove the point.

While the being a jerk bit was uncalled for, I don't blame the poster for the original belief though. Go programmers refer to CGo as "slow". Python programmers refer to their C integration as "fast". It is a plainly obvious conclusion from such characterizations that the Python integration is faster than Go.

Only someone being far, far more careful with their uses of "fast" and "slow" than I am used to seeing in programming discussions would pick up on the mismatch in contexts there. As such, I don't think that's a particularly good context. People who use it do not seem to have a generally unified scale of "fast" and "slow" that is even internally consistent, but rather a mismash of relatively inconsistent time scales (and that's not "relatively inconsistent" as in "sort of inconsistent" but "inconsistent relative to each other" [1]), thus making "fast" and "slow" observably useless to compare between any of them.

For useful, I would submit to you that unless you are one of the rare exceptions that we read about with those occasional posts where someone digs down to the very guts of Windows to issue Microsoft a super precise bug report about how it is handling semaphores or something, no user has ever come up to you and said that your software is fast or slow because it uses CGo, or any equivalent statement in any other language. That's not an acceptance criterion of any program at a user level. It doesn't matter if "CGo is slow" if your program uses it twice. The default context you are alluding to is a very low level engineering consideration at most but not something that is on its own fast or slow.

A good definition of fast or slow comes from somewhere else, and maybe after a series of other engineering decisions may work its way down to the speed of CGo in that specific context. 99%+ of the time, the performance of the code will not get worked down to that level. We are blinded by the exceptions when it happens but the vast majority of the time it does not.

By this, I mean it is an engineering mistake, albeit a very common one, to obsess in this "default context" about whether this technology or that technology is fast or slow. Programmers do this all the time. It is a serious, potentially project-crashing error. You need to start in the contexts that matter and work your way down as needed, only rarely reaching this level of detail at all. As such, this "default context" should be discarded out of your mind; it really only causes you trouble and failure as you ignore the contexts that really matter.

[1]: Of the various changes to English as she is spoken over the last couple of centuries, one of my least favorite is how a wide variety of useful words that used to have distinct meanings are now just intensifiers.