[tptacek]

Zero-copy is often not actually a win; it's also uncommon in C code, too. The parent comment is right; I/O bound programs tend to do just as well in slow languages as in fast. It's true that language performance often doesn't matter, just like it's true that parser designs don't matter if you just use sexprs for everything.

[cwzwarich]

I disagree. I've measured it and it matters.

[tptacek]

For your data set.

[emn13]

For lots of data sets, and that includes many so-called I/O-bound datasets. Don't forget that a lot of I/O is very fast nowadays: if you're reading 100's of MB from the disk a second, you can't spend much time on the CPU processing each byte before the CPU becomes the bottle - you have on the order of 10-100 of clock cycles a byte, no more. Simple things like decoding utf-8 and checksumming can take a significant portion of this time, and that's before you're parsing anything. (Hence stuff like protocol buffers...)

If you're trying to make a fast program you obviously avoid too much expensive I/O. You can't avoid some latency, but you can often avoid a lot, and cache a lot, and place the rest closer to the consumer.

When you say I/O dominated, are you sure you don't mean: interactive website? Because I think the real saving grace there is that's it's OK for websites to be very slow - from the perspective of a CPU. It's not that the I/O needs to take a lot of time, it's that you have 100ms (and that's before ajax and relatives, which can hide even more latency), and you just don't need a lot of optimization to get into that restriction. And once you have, the difference between 100ms and 1ns just doesn't matter nearly as much; so sure, then you start to accept very inefficient I/O setups even though much more efficient ones could be readily available.