[Arech]

Overall, the whole logic "A is written in X, but B is written in Y, hence it is faster" is so deeply flawed, that one has to consider a possibility that the author doesn't understand the mere basics of computer program engineering. There are so much nuances that I don't even want to start untangling it.

[WhyNotHugo]

Agreed. And for tools like this (which are light wrappers around much heavier tools), the difference in performance is insignificant. It’s all the other factors that start to matter.

[sgarland]

mise (née rtx), by the same author, could confidently claim this because the tool it replaced – asdf – is written in bash. Bash is perfectly capable for a great many things, but unless you’re getting fairly deep into the weeds of what it can do (e.g. eschewing external calls to sed et al. whenever possible in favor of parameter substitution), you’ll tank performance from sub-shell spawn times. mise was objectively and obviously faster out of the box, though nearly any language that included basic text processing functionality would’ve been acceptably fast.

In general though, I agree that the blanket statement of “X is good because it’s language Y” is absurd, though I stubbornly cling to the opposite case for NodeJS, because I despise the idea of a frontend language running anything but a browser window. I have no objective defense.

[dlisboa]

`asdf` has now been rewritten in Go for anyone interested, so choosing mise over it due to performance is less of a concern now.

[sgarland]

Oh, good to know! Kinda sad that they gave up on bash; I wonder how they’ll differentiate themselves now.

I had submitted a PoC patch for the bash version that greatly sped it up, but there were a couple of tests I was struggling to get to pass, and I ran out of free time.