Many people are saying that AI will make software faster by rewriting it in faster languages, but this isn’t generally true. Most programs cannot be meaningfully sped up by rewriting them in C or Rust.
\nHow can this be true? Some languages are orders-of-magnitude faster than others: for instance, C can be fifty times faster than Python. Won’t rewriting my Python program in C thus make it fifty times faster? No, it won’t. Software performance is usually dominated by I/O, not the speed of the language. Where language speed matters, most slow languages already have popular libraries that allow them to unlock C-like speed. In general, performance is a matter of design, not of language choice.
\nConsider a simple CRUD website with a database. For any given request, 50% of the request time1 might be spent querying the database: to fetch the current user, the record being asked for, any relevant user memberships or settings, and so on. Rewriting that website in C can only speed up that other 50%, which puts a hard ceiling on the improvements you can make2. At best, you’ll make requests twice as fast (probably closer to 1.5x in practice). That’s not bad, but it’s nowhere near an order-of-magnitude speedup.
\nIn other words, most real programs are “I/O-bound”: they spend most of their time waiting for data to be input or output somewhere, as opposed to “CPU-bound” programs that spend most of their time actively doing things. I/O-bound programs don’t just have to rely on a database. Often programs have to wait on some third-party API, or on writing or reading data to disk. You could speed the code in curl up by 100x and you probably wouldn’t even notice, because curl spends all of its time waiting on the network.
What about work that is obviously not I/O-bound? For instance, wikis have to turn stored markdown into renderable HTML3. Wouldn’t rewriting that in a faster language cause a massive speedup? It would! That’s why applications that do that use libraries like cmark-gfm that call out to fast languages for markdown rendering. In general, most slow languages can write very fast programs by invoking this kind of library. Python is famously a slow language, but it’s a competitive choice for CPU-bound workloads like machine learning and mathematics, because it has a healthy set of libraries that let it offload these workloads to fast C code. If a Python program spends 80% of its time doing matrix multiplications on a GPU, you are very unlikely to be able to speed it up by rewriting it in C, because those matrix multiplications are already happening in tightly-optimized C or assembly code.
\nOf course, some programs do in fact do a lot of CPU-bound work in slow languages. If a program has not had much engineering attention, there will probably be a lot of low-hanging fruit. But these programs are often unimportant: if they were important, someone would have gone in and optimized them already, before AI made it (relatively) easy. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible to find a useful program to rewrite. Actual Computer recently rewrote tiktoken in assembly, providing a significant4 speedup. However, you’re not going to revolutionize some field of computing like this. Even fast tokenization is only useful on the margins, because time spent in tokenization is a fraction of the time spent in inference.
\nDespite all this, I think most software is far slower than it could be. I’m optimistic about the potential (with or without AI) to significantly speed up commonly-used software. But I think most of these speedups will come from redesigning the program, not rewriting it in a faster language.
\nIn a 2018 post, Bryan Cantrill described trying to rewrite a C program into Rust. It was difficult because the carefully-optimized design of the C program did not play well with the Rust borrow checker. Giving up, he simply wrote the program in Rust in the naive way, expecting a 20% slowdown or worse. Instead, it was 30% faster. The reasons boil down to Rust’s internal preference for a B-tree over a binary search tree, which happens to be a more cache-efficient data structure. So even in a largely CPU-bound workload, in the hands of someone very skilled at writing fast C, performance is dominated by design, not by language speed.
\nThis matches my own experience in higher-level languages. When I think of the significant speedups I’ve managed, they’re almost exclusively redesigns of the software to do less work:
\nAll of these strategies are completely unrelated to how fast the language is. In fact, writing in a slow higher-level language can make it much easier to optimize the code, because you can see at a glance what the program is doing. If (for some reason) I had first rewritten the web server in assembly, I would have a much harder time noticing the N+1 query, or the fact that we could move an API call into a job, and so on.
\nRight now everyone is asking their AI agents to rewrite programs in Rust or C or assembly. This is fun, but it’s not a serious attempt at optimization. The set of programs that can be meaningfully sped up by this kind of rewrite is very narrow.
\nIf you want to make everything faster with AI — and you should! — you ought instead to be asking your agent to profile programs, identify hotspots, and suggest ways to redesign what the program does. Occasionally you may run into a hotspot that is truly CPU-bound and cannot be refactored to do less work. In these rare cases, rewriting that section in a faster language will help. But simply rewriting from the start will be far less successful than most people imagine.
\nThere are many good reasons to rewrite software in a different language: portability, efficiency, maintainability, and so on. But in terms of raw speed, you’re better off focusing on the program’s design.
\nThis might seem ridiculously high (if you typically work with slow languages or CPU-bound workloads), or ridiculously low (if you don’t). In my experience it’s at least in the ballpark for interpreted languages.
This is formally called Amdahl’s law.
Why not just store the HTML? You can, but sometimes the content of the HTML differs per-user (and even if you store the HTML you have to convert it at least once).
They claim 4-23x faster than tiktoken and it was indeed ~5x faster on my laptop — though arguably this speedup comes from a redesign to avoid the dependency on regex, not on any intrinsic slowness of Rust with Python bindings.